State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Global Enterprises Infotech Solution vs Mayur P. Akole & Ors. on 13 September, 2007
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NOS. 284 , 285 & 286 OF 2007 Date of filing : 08/03/2007 @ MISC. APPL. NOS. 387 to 389 OF 2007 Date of order : 13/09/2007 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NOS. 31,32 & 281/2005 MUMBAI SUBURBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM Global Enterprises Infotech Solution At 412/B, Acne Plaza, Opp. Sangam Thratre, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 Thru its A.R. Mr.Pradeep Rai Appellant/org. O.P. V/s. Mayur P. Akole At Kedar-4, Babubhai Chinoy Road, Marine Drive, Mumbai-400 020. (A-284/07) Tahir Farooqui At 48, Zaib Vila Pali Village, Bandra, Mumbai 400 050. (A-285/07) Amit V. Natekar At Omkar Building, A/103, Vadavli Section, Shivaji Nagar Road, (A-286/07) Ambarnath (E) 421 501. Respondents/org. complainants Corum : Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member Present: Mr.Rishi Bhuta, Advocate for the appellant.
Respondents in person.
- : ORAL ORDER :-
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member By common judgement, we are disposing of these three appeals filed by org. O.P. against the common order passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum in complaint Nos.31, 32 & 281/2005 decided on 06/12/2006.
All the three complainants read advertisement published in Times of India, which was inserted for inviting candidates for the course of Data Warehousing with assurance of guaranteed jobs. They approached the O.P. at Mumbai. They were short-listed by the O.P. for the course of one month. Two complainants paid Rs.35,000/- each and one complainant paid Rs.20,000/-. The attended the course. The O.P. had represented that it was having tie up with Wipro and Accenture Company and the pay package would be around Rs.2 to 2.5 Lakhs per year. However, even after completion of 1 months, complainants were not given placement in those two companies. So, the complainants demanded back their fess, but O.P. refused to oblige them. Therefore, police complaint was filed in MIDC Police Station against the O.P. and its officials. They also filed consumer complaints for claiming refund of Tuition fees, loss of wages and compensation as mentioned in the complaints.
O.P. filed written statement and contested the complaint. The O.P. pleaded that no guarantee was given about the job or placement to the complainants. No complaint was made during the course. Placement was subject to conditions and it was on merits. The complainants did not qualify for the placement. Therefore, filing of complaints was mischievous. It was intended to extract amount from the O.P. He therefore pleaded that all the complaints should be dismissed with cost.
On perusal of the documents and affidavits placed on record, the Learned District Consumer Forum was pleased to direct the O.P. to refund Tuition fee to all the complainants and also pay Rs.20,000/- each by way of compensation besides cost of Rs.2,000/- each to all the complainants within one month from the date of order and further directed that in case of failure the amounts would carry simple interest @ 12% p.a. Aggrieved by this order, these three appeals have been filed by the O.P. We heard Mr.Rishi Bhuta, Advocate for the appellant and respondents in person.
We are finding that the complainants joined the course of appellant after reading the advertisement put in Times of India. The advertisement mentioned that there would be guaranteed job. A small asterisk mentioned that the conditions applied. In the course of arguments, we asked all the three respondents, who were present in person, whether they had been given training as per fees charged. They said that they had been given training, but training was not up to the mark. However, we read the complaints of all the three complainants and found that they had not made out the case that the class was not conducted properly or they were not taught the subjects properly. Their only grievance was that after completion of course, O.P. has not given placement to them in the reputed companies like Wipro or Accenture and this grievance was found favour in the Forum below, who awarded refund of Tuition fees plus compensation of Rs.20,000/- plus cost of Rs.2,000/- to each of the complainants.
We are finding that the order directing refund of Tuition fees is improper because Tuition fees were collected for course of 1 months. It is not the grievance of the respondents herein that they were not taught course properly. So, training is imparted to all the three respondents by the O.P. in Data Warehousing field. The default on the part of the appellant-Company is just to not giving placement to these candidates in companies like Wipro and Accenture. In fact the respondents are educated persons. They are graduates in various streams of engineering. While reading, they should understand that in companies like Wipro and Accenture, selection is not made on the recommendation of company like appellant herein. They are providing training, so that this training will be helpful to the candidates to secure job in companies like Wipro and Accenture nothing more. However, they were mis-leaded by the advertisement put in by the appellant-Company in Times of India. When they had mentioned guaranteed job, persons like complainants might have been swayed away to join the course with the hope that they would get job in the companies like Wipro and Accenture. So, it is the mis-leading advertisement published by the appellant-company, which prompted the complainants/respondents to join the course. The Company cannot be faulted for not providing job after completion of course to all these respondents. The Company faulted in publishing mis-leading advertisement of guaranteed job. It is for this reason, we are inclined to confirm the order of compensation passed by the Forum below, but we are not agreeing with the Forum below that the whole Tuition fee should be refunded back to the complainants/respondents herein. The Tuition fee is charged for education imparted. It was not the case of the complainants that they were not given training in Data Warehousing field. Their only grievance is about non giving placement in the Company as assured. So, we are finding that the appellant-Company is guilty of unfair trade practice in publishing advertisement giving job guarantee and inviting candidates like respondents to join the course by paying hefty fees. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the order of refund of Tuition fees passed by the Forum below is unjust and will have to be quashed by allowing these appeals partly, but rest of the order will have to be maintained for the simple reason that the Company had assured guaranteed job in their mis-leading advertisement, which itself amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of appellant-Company. This practice is certainly deprecatory and must be condemned without mincing words and it is for this reason, we are maintaining part of the order whereby the Forum below was pleased to award compensation of Rs.20,000/- with cost of Rs.2,000/- to each of the complainants. In the result, we are inclined to allow these appeals partly.
-: ORDER :-
1.
Appeal Nos.284, 285 & 286/2007 are partly allowed.
2. Clause No.2 of the operative part of the order so far as refund of tuition fees is concerned is hereby quashed and set aside.
3. Rest of the order stands confirmed.
4. Appellant-Company is restrained by an order of this Commission from giving the sort of advertisement, which they had given in Times of India giving job guarantee to candidates joining their course.
5. Misc. Appl. Nos.387 to 389/2007, which are for stay stand disposed of.
6. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
(S. P. Lale) (P.N. Kashalkar) Member Presiding Judicial Member dd.