PRESENT: Sh.Rohit Dheer, Adv. for the Complainants.

         Sh.Sudhir Theari, Adv. for OPs.

PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

        Concisely put, in response to the rosy picture projected by the OPs in their advertisement about good career and job in the Merchant Navy, the Complainants approached the OPs and were provided with a Brochure/Information Booklet about the education and services that would be rendered to the students at OP-Institute. Believing their words and promises & assurances of quality education & services to be rendered, Complainant made his son – Vijender Singh to join the OP Institute for a two years course as Deck Cadet (1A) and paid a total fee of Rs.3,60,525/- vide receipts, copies of which are at Annexure C-2 to C-4 respectively. It was averred that the OPs time and again boasted that they would provide source ship placement/ job apprenticeship for its Trainees and assist them in getting Cadetship/ Apprenticeship with Foreign Shipping Companies against the fees paid by the candidate after the completion of the course, but neither the course was completed, nor any training, onshore training/ course, on board/ship training, completion of sea-time, subsequent assured ship placements, services etc. had been provided and the Complainant had been left in lurch. A copy of the agreement entered into between the parties at the time of enrolling the course is at Annexure C-5. In this manner, while usurping the hard earned money of Complainant No.1, the OPs had literally spoiled the precious two yeas of the career of his son - Complainant No. 2. Since the OPs failed to render the assured services, the Complainants approached them for the refund of the fees, which they agreed to refund, vide agreement dated 03.6.04 (Annexure C-6), but to no avail. Hence, this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the end, the Complainant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

2]      Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case.

3]      OPs No. 1 in their written statement/reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that Complainant No. 2 applied for the course of Deck cadet in the year 2001. At the time of admission, a Bond/ Contract was executed between the Punjland Shipping and Maritime Services Pvt. Ltd. and the Complainant No. 2, to arrange the education training courses as “Deck Cadet” with the various associated Maritime Institutes of Punjland Shipping and Maritime Services Pvt. Ltd. and then to arrange Apprenticeship of the Complainant No. 2 on Board Foreign Flagship Company as “Deck Cadet” as per Maritime Training Regulations. It was submitted that the Complainants have not made party the Associate Maritime Institutions of the Punjland Shipping & Maritime Services Pvt. Ltd. in the complaint, from where the Complainant No. 2 did his pre-sea education and training courses. It was denied that any assurance(s) to provide job in the Merchant Navy was given to the Complainant No. 2 by OP No.1 or any other official of the Company. The object of the Punjland Shipping and Maritime Services Pvt. Ltd., was/is only to stick to arrange/ provide the education and training courses with a various Associated Maritime Institutes of Punjland Shipping and Maritime Services Pvt. Ltd. and to arrange apprenticeship of Complainant No. 2 on Board the Foreign Flagship Company, as per the Maritime Training Regulations. OP No. 2 has nothing to do with the present case, as it was engaged in Education and Community applied research activities as an NGO working with other NGOs and Govt. Organizations and had no concern with the Punjland Shipping and Maritime services Pvt. Ltd. It was admitted that Complainant No.2 paid Rs.3,60,525/- to the OP Institute as fee towards the course. It was denied that no training of any kind was provided to the Complainant No. 2. All shore based pre-sea educational and training programmes were provided to the Complainant No. 2, as per the Schedule/ Plan, but the apprenticeship at sea of the Complainant No. 2 was only delayed due to the events of September 11, 2001, in USA. Due to this, the trainee positions of fresh candidates from South Asia were temporarily stopped by the associated shipping company. The ship based apprenticeship/ training at sea was also delayed due to limited sailing of ships in the period of recession in transport industry during and after war between USA and Iraq in the year 2002. It was asserted that incidental delays were explained in the contract executed between Punjland Shipping and Maritime Services Pvt. Ltd. and the Complainant No. 2  during the admission of Complainant No. 2.  It was further pleaded that a contract for ship based training for Complainant No. 2 was sourced at Mumbai but he was absent and could not join the ship as he did not report in Mumbai office of the Company in time on the date of joining the Ship. As the nature of ship operations is transient to sail to next port, another candidate junior to him was replaced with him. It was further pleaded that the Complainant No. 2 had completed all the on shore based pre-sea educational and training programmes as per the schedule/plan. As per the contract entered into between Punjland Shipping and Maritime Services Pvt. Ltd. and Complainant No. 2, the Complainant No. 2 was not entitled for the refund of the fee, as he chose to withdraw from the course of his own. More so, he had also given declaration in the admission form and was accordingly, bound by the Rules and Regulations of Mercantile Marine Rules, Regulations and Shipping Acts and ITF/IMO Polices and Resolution. Although, the Complainant No. 2 was not entitled for refund of fee as per the contract, still the OP No. 1 Institute taking lenient view, agreed to refund some amount to him. Some of the copies of the amounts received by the Complainants from the OP No. 1 is at Annexure R-14(a) to R-14(e), after with withdrawal from the Institute. All other material contentions of the Complainant were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

4]      OP No. 2 did not file any written reply and evidence separately and adopts the written reply and evidence filed on behalf of OP No. 1.

5]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6]      We have carefully gone through the entire case thoroughly, including the complaint and the relevant documents tendered by the complainant / OPs. We also heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsels for the Complainants and OP No. 1 & 2 respectively. As a result of the detailed analysis of the entire case, the following points/issues have clearly emerged and certain conclusions/ arrived at, accordingly:-

i]  The basic facts of the case in respect of the Complainant No.2 having joined the OPs for the Deck Cadet Course in response to the advertisement of the OPs about a good career and job in the Merchant Navy and that the Complainants had paid a total sum of Rs.3,60,525/- to the OPs as Course fee, have all been admitted. As per the Complainants, the OPs were expected to assist Complainant No. 2 to complete the academic courses, receive on shore training and board/ship training, completion of sea time and subsequently in obtaining ship placements/ services, but nothing of this kind has been done by the OPs and that the OPs have usurped the hard earned money of Complainant No. 1 and in the process, spoiled two years of the career of his son i.e. Complainant No. 2. On that account, the Complainants have asked for the refund of Rs.4,82,289/- and compensation etc. The amount of Rs.4,82,289/- includes the total fee paid by the Complainants to the OPs as Rs.3,60,525/- as well as interest for the varying periods at the rate of 10% per annum.

ii] In its reply/ written statement, OP No.1 admitted the receipt of Rs.3,60,525/- as the Course fee from Complainant No. 2 for the course of Deck Cadet in the year 2001, whereupon a Bond/Contract was executed between the parties. Apart from taking certain preliminary objections, the OPs have denied all the allegations made by the Complainants against them. As per the OPs, all shore based pre-sea educational and training programmes were provided to Complainant No. 2 as per Schedule/ Plan, but the Apprenticeship Training of the Complainant No.2 at sea was delayed due to certain unfortunate events of September 11, 2001, due to which the training positions of fresh candidates from South Asia were temporarily stopped by the Associated Shipping Companies. Further, the ship based apprenticeship/ training at sea was also delayed due to limited sailing of ships in the period of recession in the sea transport industry during and after war between USA and Iraq in the year 2002. Eventually, the contract for Ship based training for Complainant No. 2 was sourced on 20.6.2003 at Mumbai (Annexure R-7), but the Complainant No. 2 remained absent and did not join the Ship, as he did not report in Mumbai office of the Company in time on the date of joining the ship. As the nature of ship operations is transient to sail to the next port, another candidate junior to him was replaced for him. The OPs further pleaded that Complainant No. 2 had in fact, completed all the on shore based pre-sea educational and training programmes and thereafter, he withdrew from the remaining off shore/ on ship training/ apprenticeship courses on his own. Further, as per the terms and conditions of the Contract entered into between the OPs and the Complainant No. 2, he was not entitled for refund of any fee, as he left the course on his own. The OPs further say that on the date of issuing directions to Complainant No. 2 for traveling to Mumbai for reporting to Udya Shipping for further placement on a Merchant Ship for Sea Apprenticeship as a Deck Apprentice (Cadet/Rating), Complainant No. 2 instead of proceeding to Mumbai to join the apprenticeship training asked the OPs to return all his documents, in original and as per his request, the following Certificates, in original, were returned to him, under due acknowledgement of receipt by him, on 20.06.2003:-

(a)   05 Pre-Sea Certificates;

(b)   Seaman’s Book;

(c)   Passport;

(d)   Educational Certificate;

(e)   Certificate of Vaccination; 

The above clearly shows that Complainant No. 2 had not joined the Shipping company of his own and also received back all his original documents, which proves his withdrawal from course, of his own volition.

iii]    During the course of final arguments, the learned counsel for the Complainants was repeatedly saying that the OPs have not given any assistance or provided facility to Complainant No. 2 for undertaking any pre-sea courses and that no certificates for passing such courses have been supplied to him. On the contrary, the OPs have placed on record, 05 certificates for the various courses, attended and successfully completed by Complainant No. 2 during the year 2001 at different Institutions/ Places in the country and also a Continuous Discharge Certificate-cum-Seafarer’s Identity Document (CDC), issued by Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, in the name of OP No. 2, on 01.05.2002. As per the OPs, this Certificate-cum-Identity document is issued by Government of India only after the Candidate had cleared all pre-sea courses and training and in the present case, the Candidate has already cleared all these courses. The photocopies of these certificates are available at Annexures R-8 to R-13 respectively. The said claim of the OPs is further proved by the letter signed by the Complainant No. 2 himself on 20.06.2003, in which he has acknowledged the receipt of 05 pre-sea original certificates. Therefore, the claim of the Complainants that the Complainant No.2 was not given any help or assistance in passing the pre-sea courses by the OPs is patently wrong and false.

iv]     So far as the refund of course fee amount, as claimed by the Complainants as at Annexure C-6 to the extent of Rs.4,82,289/-is concerned, admittedly, the OPs have already refunded an approximate sum of Rs.65,000/- to the Complainants and therefore, the claim of the Complainants is now only in respect of the balance amount. Even in the balance amount, out of the total of Rs.4,82,289/-, the principal amount is Rs.3,60,525/- and Rs.1,21,764 is the interest amount claimed by the Complainants @10% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.3,60,525/- for periods ranging from 27 months to 40 months.  

v]      The Complainants had also filed a Criminal Complaint in the Court of Shri Balwant Singh, Judicial Magistrate First Class [JMIC], U.T. Chandigarh, vide Complaint u/s 156[3] of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter had been enquired into by the Officer Incharge, Police Station, Sector 36, U.T. Chandigarh and a report was submitted to the said Hon’ble Court on 13.12.2007. As per the inquiry report, since Complainant No. 2 had not completed the entire course of Deck Cadet with the OPs, a settlement was reached between the Parties, in which total refund of Rs.1,52,000/- was agreed and specified after deducting expenses on courses and training expenses already incurred by the OPs on behalf of Complainant No. 2. The report further says that out of this amount, a sum of Rs.65,000/- had already been paid by the OPs to the Complainants as on 29.08.2006 and thereafter, the remaining amount of Rs.87,000/- was offered by the OPs to the Complainants was not being accepted by the Complainants by saying that they will accept only Rs.4,00,000/-. In the meantime, the Complainant No. 2 is reported to have gone abroad and OP No. 1 is refusing to accept the part payment being offered by the OPs. So far as the criminal complaint filed by the Complainants with the Court of Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, U.T. Chandigarh, is concerned, especially dealing with the inquiry report, as given by the Police Station, Sector 36, U.T. Chandigarh, on orders from CJM, Chandigarh, this Forum is not competent to deal with that matter. Moreover, the detailed terms and conditions of the Agreement, reached between the Parties, are not available on the case file, as also the reasons as to why and how the Complainants did accept the part sum of Rs.65,000/- upto 29.08.2006 and thereafter, refused to accept the balance amount of Rs.87,000/- as agreed to between the parties. All these facts and figures are not available on the records of this Forum. It further appears that the criminal case with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, U.T., Chandigarh, is still pending and, therefore, the matter is clearly sub-judice with that Court on that account. So far as this Forum is concerned, we have to only look up for any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs qua the Complainants in respect of services expected to be rendered by the OPs towards Complainants for the consideration paid by them to OPs and not any other litigation that may be going on between the Parties in any Court of law.    

vi]     In support of their contentions, the OPs have further enclosed another document (Annexure R-15), which is a letter of undertaking for documentation, travel and joining instructions on a Ship and the code of conduct, which has been duly executed and signed by both the Complainants on stamp paper of Rs.10/-. On page 4, of this document, the clause [d] in relation to abiding by the contractual agreement by the Complainants is quoted below:-

“(d) In case of my failure to abide by the contractual agreement of service or inability to join the ship on time when all documentation and travel services have been secured, I would cease to have any service liability or claim towards the company or its representatives and would myself be liable for any legal action for any ill use of the documents if the Company approaches any competent authority for the same against me.” 

vii]    It is quite clear that the Complainants and especially, Complainant NO. 2, has not abided by the contractual agreement by not joining the Ship on time, when all documentation of travel services had been secured and, therefore, there is no service liability or claim towards the Company qua Complainant No. 2 on that account. 

7]      The detailed analysis of the entire case shows that the Complainants have themselves not approached this Forum with clean hands. They have only tried to put all kind of allegations against the OPs, without disclosing the numerous lapses on their own part. They have even misstated certain facts, which does not reflect positively on their bonafides. Basically speaking, the grievance of the Complainants against the OPs are only two fold; the one that the OPs had usurped a sum of Rs.3,60,525/- as course fee received from them and did not render any service to them. This allegation is clearly falsified on account of the fact that the OPs had given full assistance and provided proper facility to Complainant No. 2 to undertake atleast 5 pre-sea courses of education/ training in relation to the first leg of the Ship Cadet Course at the end of which they had even got him a Government of India’s Certificate-cum-Identity Document for undertaking further training on the Ship, as well Ship Apprenticeship. All this has been proved beyond an iota of doubt as the Complainant No. 2 has himself received back all the 05 documents from the OPs against written acknowledgement on 20.06.2003 (Annexure R-7). Not only that, the Complainant No. 2 himself refused to travel to Mumbai to have a placement on a Marine Ship for Sea Apprenticeship as a Deck Apprentice Cadet and thereby, himself abandoned the remaining part of the Deck Cadet Course, on his own. The second allegation of the Complainants against the OPs is the non-refund of amount of fee paid by them to the OPs to the extent of Rs.3,60,525/-. Even, this claim is falsified on the ground that the Complainants have already acknowledged having received an approximate sum of Rs.65,000/- from the OPs, as part refund of fee and for the remaining amount, they had lodged a Criminal Complaint with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, U.T. Chandigarh, where the case is perhaps still pending. The Complainants have not put on record any document, showing any clause for the refund of total fee by the OPs. In fact, as per the letter of the OPs, dated 15.1.2001 (Annexure R-1), only part fee can be refunded for Ship placement, if the Ship based training is unduly delayed than the specified time. In the present case, no doubt, that the Ship Training was delayed to some extent, but that too was for reasons beyond the control of OPs being totally unforeseen and unanticipated, but even the subsequent offer made by the OPs to the Complainant No. 2 for undertaking the sea training/ cadet apprenticeship was not accepted by him on his own and thereby he has himself forfeited his claim for the refund of total fee. It is not clear from any document on record especially, the agreement signed by parties, as to how much amount out of the total fee of rs.3,60,525/- is refundable and which part is non-refundable and hence, no specific claim can be allowed to be refunded by the OPs.

8]      From the above stated details of the case, it is quite clear that there is no weight, substance or merit in the present complaint of the Complainants, as they have not been able to establish any deficiency in service or indulgence in an unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs qua them. Therefore, the present complaint cannot succeed in favour of the Complainants and against the OPs. As such, it must fall. We, therefore, dismiss the present complaint. However, the respective parties shall bear their own costs.

9]     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to the