BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE

                                                         Dated this the 30^th January 2017

PRESENT

        SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D     : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

        SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR                  : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDERS IN

C.C. No.322/2012

(Admitted on 17.10.2012)

Mr. Pavan Acharya, B. S/o Gopalakrishna,

Acharya B., adult, “Akshaya”, Near

Mallika Extension, Kadri Kambla,

Mangalore  575 003.

                                                             ….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri GKR)

VERSUS

1. CEO, Global Talent Track,

    6^th Floor, Regenesis Delta II,

    Giga Space, Vimannagar,

    Pune  411014.

2. The Manager, Global Edu. Centre,

    1173/13, 3^rd Floor, Alfine

    Commercial Bldg., Dr. Rajakumar Road,

    Opp. Raja Rajeshwari Kalyana Mandap,

    Rajajinagar,

    Bangalore   560010.

3. Ms. Divyashree Gatti,

    Recruitment Executive,

    Global Talent Track, 4^th Floor,

    PVS Sadan Bldg. PVS Circle,

    Mangalore  575 003.

                                                           …........OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for the Opposite Parties No.1 to No.3: In person)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:

I.       1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against opposite party alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

     The complainant claims on the offers of opposite party he joined the programme offered by opposite parties as GPT Advance Software and Process Engineering Programme on full payment of Rs.35,000/ as there was attracted offer of placement on completion of the said training programme as confirmed by the letter dated 3.9.2011.   Opposite party under the letter of the intent general obligation to get placement in any of the Software 10 IT companies in India or else to refund the amount paid less Rs.10,000/  Even though the complainant completed this programme with opposite parties he was not given any placement as promised.   Hence claiming that there is non-compliance of opposite party and thereby deficiency seeks the reliefs claimed in the complaint.

II.     Opposite party contends the completion of the course does not qualify the students of terms and conditions of the letter of the intent (LOI) there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  The complainant signed the acknowledged the terms and conditions of the LOI which enrolls as some of the terms and condition are quote:

1. That as per the letter dated 08.05.2012 every student shall complete the course successfully (only by achieving minimum 70% marks in all modules as administered during the conduct of the course).
2. That no student shall be absent for more than two days over the entire duration of the course for any reason whatsoever.
3. That the student shall attend all the interviews arranged by GTT.
4. That the successful fulfilment of the qualifying assessment/interviews.
5. That there must be complete verification in correctness of the student’s documents and statements so forth made.

2.     The complainant completely failed to satisfy the conditions as to quality of the course and also failed to attend all the interview as per the terms and conditions of the LOI.  Opposite party successfully completed and delivered the training but the complainant without fulfillment of the condition of the LOI has not fulfilled the conditions of the LOI.  Hence seeks dismissal.

3.     In support of the above complainant Mr. Pavan Acharya filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C9 as detailed in the annexure here below.  On behalf of the opposite party Mr. Atul Gurav (RW1) service, also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.R1.

III.     In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

     The learned counsels for both sides filed written arguments.   We have considered entire case file on record including evidence tendered by the parties and notes of argument of the parties.  Our findings on the points are as under are as follows:

                           Point No.  (i): Affirmative

                           Point No.  (ii): Negative

                           Point No. (iii): As per the final order.

REASONS

IV.   POINTS No. (i):   The complainant by paying Rs.35,000/ to opposite parties entered with LOI for the training programme conducted by opposite parties is admitted by both sides.  The complainant claims under the terms of the LOI as he had completed the training programme successfully.   Opposite party is required to provide placement in one of the 10 software IT companies to complainant but has not provided to him. Hence there is deficiency in service which is denied by opposite party as complainant did not appear to some of the examination conducted by opposite party there is want of fulfilment of terms and conditions of LOI by complainant himself.  Thus there is a dispute between the parties as contemplated under section 2(1)(e) under C P Act.  Hence point No.1 answer in the affirmative.

POINTS NO (ii):   Ex.C1 is the letter of intent between the parties.  As seen from the Ex.C1 the LOI the candidate i.e. the complainant herein would be entitled for the refund of entire amount by deducting the amount of Rs.10,000/ as of fee paid Rs.35,000/  of the totally fee paid by complainant the complainant contends he is entitled refund of Rs.25000/.

 2.     However opposite party contends there is violation by the complainant of course upon even the course of training the Ex.C1 the letter of intent the condition no.1 & 2 with which we are consider reads thus:

1. You attending and participating in all the classes and sessions of the Training Course and undergoing the periodical assessment of your performance, both written and practical, as per the training schedule and curriculum of the Training Course.
2. You successfully finishing your graduation without any backlog and submitting all relevant documents.

3.    It was pointed out for opposite party even according to complainant in his reply affidavit to the interrogatories in answer to question no. 5 he answered in the affirmative on behalf of opposite party and the answer in the reply affidavit evidence reads thus:

5Q: Had the complainant attend all the assessment tests which were conducted by GTT?

5Ans:  Yes

 4.     As seen from  the document produced by the opposite party the copy of Mangalore Generic Batch Performance Report core technologies indicates in respect of Oracle Architecture, Oracle Module test the complainant is shown as Absent and in the remarks column in the document also it is mentions absent.  As seen from the Ex.C1 in the declaration annexure A that shall be declaration as to the particular company attend the location date of such interviews the period from 1^st Dec 2010 till 22.9.2011 there is not entry in respect of these column even in the copy of the said documents produced by opposite party also that columns the complainant also did not given the names of the companies which he attended for interview.  As such the contention of complainant that he was not provided with the placement despite complying with the condition of the contract Ex.C1 is not justified.     Hence we answer point No.2 in the negative.

POINTS No. (iii):  Wherefore the following order

ORDER

                           The complaint is dismissed.   

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

     (Page No.1 to 7 directly dictated by President to computer system to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th January 2017)

             MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

  (SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR)          (SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)

D.K. District Consumer Forum               D.K. District Consumer Forum

 Additional Bench, Mangalore                 Additional Bench, Mangalore

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. Pavan Acharya

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1:20.7.2011: Letter of Intent

Ex.C2: 25.08.2011: Duplicate receipt

Ex.C3: 11.01.2012: Request for refund

Ex.C4: 17.01.2012: Request for refund

Ex.C5: 06.06.2012: Office copy of Lawyers Notice

Ex.C6: 28.06.2012: Reply notice

Ex.C7: 03.09.2011: Certificate issued by the 1^st Opposite Party

Ex.C8:                  : Return of RPAD cover addressed to 2^nd  Opposite party

Ex.C9:                  : Return of RPAD cover addressed to 3^rd Opposite party

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW1  Mr. Atul Gurav, service

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:

Ex.R1: copy of Mangalore Generic Batch Performance Report (Core Techologies)

Dated: 30.01.2017                                              PRESIDENT