DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  2^nd day of  May, 2023 

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

                  :  Smt. Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                Date of Filing: 21/12/2019  

                         CC/294/2019

A.Ajay,

S/o.Sasikumar,

Balakrishna, Vadakkethara,

Kottekad P.O. Palakkad – 678 732                  -                       Complainant

                             (By Adv.M/s.K.V.Surendran & V.Jishakumari)

                                                                                                Vs

1. B. Madusudhan,

The Unit Head,

NIIT, Palakkad Centre,

XI/781, Town Hall Road,

Palakkad – 678 001                             -                       Opposite party  

(By Adv.G.Ananthakrishnan)

O R D E R

By  Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. Pleadings essential for a judicious adjudication of the dispute are that the complainant joined a post graduate programme in software engineering specialization conducted by the opposite party on July 2018. Duration of the course was 17 weeks but due to deficiency in service on the part of OP, the course took more that the said period and the complainant could avail a certificate only by July 2019. Further the certificate issued showed that the title was NIIT FUTURZ. No explanation whatsoever was given when enquired as to what Futurz was.  The course was not supported by industry and was a waste of over 1 academic year of the complainant. The complainant is aggrieved thereby and seeks return of course fees along with compensation.
2. Opposite party deny complaint allegations stating that the course was for 317 hours, i.e. 4 hours per day and that the complainant did not utilize the entire time. He used to be continuously absent and had failed in an exam once. Delay in completion of course was attributable to the complainant himself. Further the O.P. was only a franchisee. Certificates were issued by NIIT and not by him. There is no deficiency in service whatsoever on the part of opposite party and sought for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Issues that  arise for consideration are as herein below:

1. Whether the opposite party had taken classes for the whole duration of the course?
2. Whether the certificate issued by the opposite party was valid ?
3. Whether the course was industry approved?
4. Whether there is any other deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.?

5.         Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs sought for?

6.         Any other Reliefs?

4. (i)     Evidence on the part of complainant comprised of Exts. A1 to A6. Complainant was examined as PW1. 

   (ii)                OP also filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.B1 to B7. Exts.B3, B4, B5 & B6 has sub- markings. OP was examined as DW1. 

Issue No.1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

5.         Complaint pleadings are to the effect that the course was of a duration of 17 weeks. But due to the lackadaisical approach of the opposite party, course duration extended to nearly 7 months thereby causing loss of one academic year of the complainant. Opposite party vehemently objected to this contention of the complainant and stated that the course was of a duration of 314 hours. It was the complainant who had failed to stick to the time limits. Complainant had even failed one examination. All support was provided to him.  In view of the said pleadings and counter-pleadings, this Commission is faced with the task of ascertaining the duration of course undertaken by the complainant.

6. It is to be noted that none of the documents produced by the complainant or the opposite party show 17 weeks as the course duration. Ext.A4 course certificate shows that the duration was 314 hours.

7.         During cross examination of PW1 the opposite party put direct questions to PW1 whether he had taken classes for 362 hours, to which he answered that he had taken classes for more time. 

Relevant portions of the cross examination of the complainant to ascertain the merits of the pleadings are as below:

a.         Page 3 lines 7 to 11 “sam¯w  7  modules  D­mbncp¶p Hsc®w ]mÊv Bbmse ASp¯Xp FgpXm³ ]ÁpIbpÅp. Rm³ Hcp XhW tXmÁn«p­v.    Total course 4 amkw BsW¶mWv ]dªXv.  aWn¡qÀ IW¡v ]dªn«nÔ.

b.         Page 4 lines 12 to 15 “Cu  course \v  th­n  314 aWn¡qÀ BWv  allot  sNbvXn«pÅsX¶v ]dªm F\n¡dnbnÃ.  4  months BsW¶mWv ]dªn«pÅXv.  Per day 4 hours BsW¶mWv a\Ênem¡nbXv”.  

(It is the case of the complainant that the duration of the case is 17 weeks. But no evidence whatsoever is produced by the complainant to prove this allegation.)  

c.         Page 6 lines 1 to 5 “Ext.B7 (series)   215 Øe§fn Rm³ H¸n«Xv ImWmw. Hmtcm¶nepw  time in Dw time out Dw  D­v. CXn  4 aWn¡qÀ AÁ³Uv sN¿m¯ ]e kµÀ`§fpw Ds­¶v ]dªm icnbmWv.

d.         Page 7 lines 1 to 10  “25 July 2018 \mWv BZyambn 2^nd  year XpS§nbXv. Ahkm\ambn attend sNbvXXv  27/6/2019 \mWv.  lmPcm¡nb attendance sheet  Hcp]mSv Znhkw Rm³    attend sN¿m¯Xmbn ImWpsa¶v ]dªm icnbmWv.  Total 362 aWn¡qdmWv Rm³ attend sNbvXn«pÅsX¶v ]dªm icnbÃ. AXn IqSpXm Rm³  attend sNbvXn«p­v.   4 amkw  correct Bbn  attend sNbvXncps¶¦n Cu course Xocpambncp¶psh¶v ]dªm icnbmWv”.

(O.P. stated that the course duration was for 314 hours. But the complainant has admitted that he had taken more than 362 hours of training.)

e.         Page 7 lines 14 to 16 “faculty bpsS A`mhw sIm­pw,  system In«m¯Xp sIm­pw BWv  course ImeXmakw h¶sX¶p lÀPnbntem  affidavit tem ]dªn«nÔ.

8.         Perusal of relevant portion of deposition shows that the complainant has admitted that the opposite party had taken classes for the whole duration and that complainant had failed to attend a number of classes. Complainant has also admitted that he had taken classes for more than 362 hours. He has also admitted that he was not continuous in the class.  No objection is put as to the authenticity or correctness of attendance register or its contents by the complainant.

9.         Hence we hold that the opposite party had done more than what was offered to the complainant and that the delay of 7 months occurred solely due to the irresponsible conduct of the complainant. 

            Issue Nos.2 & 3

10.       The 2^nd and 3^rd grievance of the complainant are with regard to the insertion of the word “Futurz” in the certificate and that the course was not approved by industry. Since we feel both the grievance are inter connected we are dealing with the issues jointly.

11.       At this juncture it would be pertinent to note that the complainant has not pleaded what was the adverse impact that befell on the complainant by insertion of the word “Futurz” in Ext.A4 certificate.

12.       Neither is it clear as to what the complainant means by a certificate or a course approved by industry. We can understand, had the grievance of the complainant been that the certificate was not approved by any University and that it held no value.  

13.       On going through the evidence of the complainant we do not find the aforesaid two grievances being of much importance as can be inferred from the deposition of PW1 which is reproduced herein below:

            Page 2 lines 11 to 13 “certificate \p  th­nbà Rm³ t]mbXv.  Knowledge \p th­nbmWv    main Bbn t]mbXv.

14.       The aforesaid statement notwithstanding, the complainant has not adduced any evidence to successfully prove the issues in his favour. Resultantly both these issues are held against the complainant.

            Issue Nos.4 to 6

15.       Resultantly we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for. The complaint is dismissed.

16.       In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

                  Pronounced in open court on this the 2^nd  day of May, 2023.     

      Sd/-

                                                                                                Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

       Sd/-

   Vidya.A

                       Member        

       Sd/-                                                         Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :

Ext.A1 – Original receipt dated 25/7/2018

Ext.A2 –  Original receipt dated 14/9/18

Ext.A3 – Original receipt dated 17/10/18

Ext.A4 -  Original course certificate bearing No.20AAZZZZZ9939

Ext.A5 -  Copy of lawyers notice 26/7/2019

Ext.A6 -  Original Postal acknowledgement card

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:   

Ext.B1 – Original application form alongwith annexures

Ext.B2 –  Copy of course orientation

Ext.B3 – Courseware issue tracking register

Ext.B3 (a) –  Pages containing serial nos. 34,35 & 38 of April 2018

Ext.B3 (b) – Page containing serial no.23 of September 2018

Ext.B4 -  Original appraisal log  

Ext.B4 (a) – Pages 134 & 135  (January 2019) of Ext.B4

Ext.B4(b) -   Pages 140 & 141  (April 2019) of Ext.B4

Ext.B4(c) –  Pages 142 & 143  (May  2019) of Ext.B4

Ext.B4(d) -   Pages 144 &145  (June 2019) of Ext.B4

Ext.B5 – Certificate issue register

Ext.B5(a) -  Pages 74 & 75 of Ext.B5

Ext.B6 –   Original fee receipt Books (3 nos)

Ext.B6(a) –Duplicate copy of receipt bearing No.463 in Book No.10

Ext.B6(b) – Duplicate copy of receipt bearing No.242 in Book No.5

Ext.B6(c) - Duplicate copy of receipt bearing No.602 in Book No.13

Ext.B6(d) - Duplicate copy of receipt bearing No.610 in Book No.13

Ext.B7 – Attendance sheets    

Court Exhibit:  Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1 – A.Ajay (Complainant)

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: 

DW1 – Madusudanan (opposite party)

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.