Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

As all the appeals are directed against the order dated 16.04.2008 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short "the District Forum"). The facts are taken from F.A. No.626 of 2008 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.

2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Pardeep Kumar and others, respondents/complainants (hereinafter called as "the respondents") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the appellant/opposite party (hereafter called as "the appellant"), making the assertions that the appellant is running an educational institution at Border Road, near BSF Headquarters, Fazilka. In July, August, 2004, it advertised in pamphlets and newspapers that it has got approval from National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT) and Director General of Employment & Training (DGE&T) for the courses of Computer Operator and Programming Assistant (COPA) of one year, Electrician of two years and Wireman of two years, and allured the respondents to get admission in its institution, by misstating that it is approved by NCVT and DGE&T.

3. In August, 2004, the respondents got admission in the course of Electrician Trade for two years in the institution of the appellant and it was assured to the respondents that their course will be completed in July, 2006. The appellant charged Rs.38,000/- from each of the respondents as course fee and issued the receipts. The respondents were residing at a distant place and they have to spend Rs.30,000/- each for transportation charges, as they were regularly attending the course. The appellant did not conduct the examination of Electrical Trade in July, 2006 as promised at the time of admission of the respondents. On inquiry, the respondents came to know firstly in July, 2006 that the appellant has no approval from NCVT and DGE&T. The appellant assured the respondents that it will get necessary approval and the examination will be conducted in January, 2007 and the respondents waited till January, 2007, but no examinations were conducted. Besides the above charges, three precious years of each respondent were spoiled by the appellant, as the appellant failed to conduct the examination as it did not get any approval, although the appellant stated that it had. The respondents are entitled to Rs.3.00 lacs each as compensation and refund of Rs.38,000/- as course fee and Rs.30,000/- as transportation charges.

4. It was prayed that the appellant may be directed to pay each of the respondents an amount of Rs.38,000/- as refund of course fee, Rs.30,000/- as transportation charges and Rs.3.00 lacs as compensation for wastage of three precious years of each respondent and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

5. In the written version filed on behalf of the appellant, preliminary objections were taken that the respondents have concealed material facts and complaint deserves dismissal. True facts are that the appellant has been running the centre for Industrial Training since 2002 under the name and style of Sahibzada Ajit Singh Industrial Training Centre (S.A.S.I.T.C.) at Border Road, near BSF Headquarter, Fazilka. The Industrial Training and the appellant come under the direct control and provision of Director, Technical Education and Industrial Training, Punjab. The appellant vide request letter dated 02.03.2004 wrote to the Director Technical Education and Industrial Training and sought permission to shift the centre from Mahuwana Bodla to Fazilka and for starting the trade of Electrician in the centre. The appellant kept on sending the request letters for grant of permission after fulfilling all the formalities. In the meanwhile, the Deputy Director of the above department directed and verbally allowed the appellant in June, 2004 to shift the said centre and take the admission of the candidates in the Electrician Trade for the session 2004-2006. Accordingly, the appellant advertised the pamphlets, but never mentioned in the said pamphlets that it has got the approval from the National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT) and Director General of Employment & Training (DGE&T) for the said course. It was otherwise mentioned in the pamphlets that the said diploma course/trade was recognized by NCVT and DGE&T as per their Industrial Training Manual.

(i) Computer Operation & Programming Assistant (COPA)
(ii) Electrician
(iii) Wireman

19. Under it, again it is reiterated that the above diplomas are recognized by the National Council for Vocational Training and DGE&T and then, the facilities provided are mentioned. A note is given that for taking admission in any institute, the recognition from NCVT must be inquired. This note given is not related to the appellant institute, because the appellant has mentioned twice on this pamphlet Ex.C-1 that it is recognized for the above courses and this note is rather for other institutions and the appellant allured the students, including the respondents to take admission, with the writing on the wall that the above courses are recognized. The respondents took admission and paid Rs.38,000/- each as course fee for the year 2004-2006, but as admitted by the appellant in its reply itself, the examination was not conducted in the year 2006 and even till July, 2007, no recognition/approval was received. Mere writing of letters regarding approval/affiliation is not sufficient to exonerate the appellant. Vide letter Ex.R-8 dated 20.04.2007, the Director, Technical Education & Industrial Training, Punjab wrote to the Director General of Employment & Training, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi requesting to grant the affiliation of Electrician trade with NCVT. This further proves that upto 20.04.2007, there was no recognition/approval of the competent authority and as per own admission of the appellant, the approval was received in July.