STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDGIARH

In Appeal No.661 of 2009

Tesol India, SCO No.170, Top Floor, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh through its Director Sh. S. Marwaha.

                                                                                    ..…Appellant.

Versus

Sh. Sanjeev Kumar R/o H.No.1154, Sector 41B, Chandigarh.

                                                            ..…Respondent.

Appeal No.662 of 2009

Tesol India, SCO No.170, Top Floor, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh through its Director Sh. S. Marwaha.

                                                                                    ..…Appellant.

Versus

Sh. Gaurav Bakshi R/o GH-3, Flat No.10, Sector 5, MDC, Panchkula.

                                                            ..…Respondent.

Appeal No.663 of 2009

Tesol India, SCO No.170, Top Floor, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh through its Director Sh. S. Marwaha.

                                                                                    ..…Appellant.

Versus

Ali Asghar Gakhar resident of House No.2470, FF, Sector 70, Mohali.

                                                            ..…Respondent.

BEFORE:            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

                        HON’BLE MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER.

                        HON’BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

ARGUED BY: Sh. R. S. Dhiman, Advocate for the appellant – TESOL India.

                        Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate the respondent (complainant).

MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER.

1.                     Vide this common order, we are disposing of three appeals bearing No.661, 662 and 663 all of 2009 filed by OP i.e. Tesol India arising out of one and the common order dated 7.10.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in complaint case No.862 of 2009 : Sanjeev Kumar Vs.  Tesol India, vide which two similar complaint cases bearing No.864 of 2009 and 913 both of 2008 filed by Gaurav Bakshi and Ali Asghar Gakhar were also decided.

2.                     Briefly the facts as taken from complaint case No.862 of 2009 are that according to the Complainant Sh. Sanjeev Kumar on being attracted by an advertisement in the newspaper which stated “OVERSEAS JOB GUARANTEED” and job would fetch “MONTHLY 1-3 LACS PLUS” and after paying the full fee of Rs.50,000/-, took admission in the tesol programme with the OP. As per the complainant, after completing the said course, no placement was give to him for a job. It was averred that when the complainant approached OP along with some other students, it flatly refused to help. It was told to the complainant by the OP that it had nothing to do with the polices of the Global Tesol College, Canada though at the time of admission, he was told by the OP that the OP was part of Tesol Global College, Canada. As per the complainant, OP mentioned job guarantee, fee refund and also of e-mail of successfully placed students but it failed to divulge the names of the successfully placed students although their brochure mentioned 99% job success rate. Alleging the failure of getting the job for him and non refund of his fee, as deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OP, the complainant had filed the present complaint.

3.                     The version of OP is that it was to give the Tesol Certificate on the completion of the Tesol Programme, which certificate was valid to get overseas job.  It was stated by the OP that it never guaranteed to provide any job to the persons undergoing the training and it was only to provide employer assistance to the person who completed the Tesol Course from the Institute, for which service, nothing was being charged from the person. OP next stated that it only charged the fee for the Training’s Programme i.e. English to Speakers of other Language (Tesol). As per the OP, it had issued genuine certificates duly certified by the Govt. of Canada to the complainants. As per the OP, it was the duty of the complainants to apply and follow the steps  for job process.  The OP had taken an objection regarding non impleading of Vocational Institute Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh as party to the complaint case. Pleading no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.                     The learned District Forum, in its analysis of the complaint and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, reproduced at Paras 7 and 8 the impugned order the Advertisement (C-1) and the Brochure (C-7). The learned District Forum after barely going through these two annexures was of the clearly recorded at Para 9 of the impugned order that there was an overseas job guarantee after successfully completion of the course and getting the certificate from the OP.  It further observed that even for the sake of argument, if it was assumed that the OP had not guaranteed the overseas job and it offered step by step job search assistance to the candidates, still the OP had failed to provide any step by step assistance to the complainants. In the view of the learned District Forum, the OP had failed to intimate the complainants regarding the availability of jobs for which they could have applied.  As per the learned District Forum, nothing had been placed on record by the OP to prove that it had intimated the complainants regarding the availability of the jobs for which they could have applied.  Holding deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, the learned District Forum allowed all the three complaints and directed the OP to refund the respective fee charged from the complainants besides Rs.20,000/- each as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainants.  The complainants were also awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each as costs of litigation. The order was directed to be complied with by the OP within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which OP was made liable to refund the aforesaid fees along with penal interest @ 18% per annum with effect from the date of order till realization.  

5.                     Aggrieved by the said order of learned District Forum, the OP has filed three separate appeals as stated in the opening para of the order. The appeals having been taken on board, notices were sent to the respective respondents/complainants and record of complaint case was summoned. Sh. R. S. Dhiman, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant/OP whereas Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate represented all the respondents/complainants.

6.                     The learned counsel for the appellant/OP submitted that the learned District Forum had erred in coming to a conclusion of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP because it did not read the brochure of the OP in a holistic manner. He further submitted that as per the brochure, the complainants were required to apply for job to the list of employers provided by the OP but the complainants in fact did not apply to all the employers in the list. Further referring to Annexure R-1, the learned counsel submitted that it is clearly indicated in this form that Tesol India was not liable to provide jobs to the Tesol Candidates after completion of the Tesol course and the liability of the Institute is limited towards completion of Tesol Courses only. He vehemently submitted that this was very much in the knowledge of the complainants at the time of registration for the course and therefore, now it cannot lye in the mouth of the complainants to claim 100% job guarantee and any compensation for non provision of the same. He also submitted that even in the body of the brochure, there was no guarantee for providing job and the Institute will only endeavor to support the candidate in their efforts to find the job. In addition, the learned counsel for the appellant/OP also drew the attention of the Bench to Annexure R-2 and Annexure R-3 to indicate that the appellant/OP had taken action to help the complainants to get the job.

7.                     In response, Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate learned counsel for the complainants submitted that Annexure C-1, which is an advertisement giving a job guarantee and also the brochure itself clearly mentions that there will be a 100% job placement done by the Institute. The learned counsel also submitted that the Institute never supplied the list of about 1000 schools, which the Institute claims to be affiliated to it. The learned counsel also clarified to the Bench that the complainants had applied to Canada but could not get any job placement. He further submitted that malafide on the part of OP is clearly established by the fact that it even refused to accept the legal notice.

8.                     We have gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

9.                     A critical perusal of Annexure C-1 and the brochure itself supplied by the appellant leaves no doubt in anybodies mind that OP had allured the complainants to join the Institute with a 100% job guarantee. Admittedly, the OP has failed to provide any job to the complainants. There is also no evidence on record to prove that in any manner, OP helped the complainants to secure a job or that it had any system of campus placements or that it had any tie up with the employers/schools, which guaranteed a job to the students of the Institute after completion of the course. It is a clear case not only of deficiency in service but is also of unfair trade practice as defined under Section 2(1)(r)(vi) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which reads as under: -

“…makes a false or misleading representation concerning the need for or usefulness of any goods or services.”

It is relevant to mention that the brochure repetitively mentions and assures 100% job guarantee and thus, we are in total consonance with the view held by learned District Forum that OP is guilty of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. It is also relevant to mention here that such misleading advertisements, which attract the global consumer cannot be permitted to be published and this trend needs to be sternly curbed. Thus, the impugned order needs to be modified to this extent.

10.                   Consequently, the all the three appeals bearing No.661, 662 and 663 all of 2009 being devoid of merit are dismissed with exemplary costs, which we quantify as Rs.5,000/- in each appeal because the appellant has unnecessarily dragged the complainants into an unwarranted litigation. The impugned order is upheld with the modification that the appellant/OP is also now directed not to issue any misleading advertisement and also to amend its brochure accordingly.

11.                   Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

17^th March 2010.