JUDGEMENT Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that according to the present brochure of the op institution in respect of the course, the course shall be conducted and completed after qualifying in an examination and the term of the course is one year and after passing out of the said examination, op institution shall have to award successful candidates a certificate of merit which will make them able to seek suitable jobs forwards and as per brochure there shall be two classes in a week with duration of 2 hours each and being interested and for complainant’s future, career and profession, she took admission on 18.11.2011 against initial payment of Rs.5,455/- and the classes of the said course commenced from 22.11.2011 and in fact classes did not start in time and schedule and each day the classes used to start after delay of 22 to 45 minutes as a result of which the course can not be completed within stipulated time of one year and it was extended for another nine months that is till August-2012 and due to extension period the weekly number of classes have even been reduced to one day on Tuesday only and during the continuation of the course in BTC she got an opportunity to join in a private organization where her duty hours was extended up to 7 P.M. But on her sincere request, her employer granted her permission to leave her place of work at 6:00 P.M. so that complainant can complete the course. But that permission was granted up to December-2012. But as because the course had not been completed by November-2012 and not even by December-2012, the employer of the complainant did not agree to show any leniency and asked the complainant to fix a choice between her education and present job. But finding no other alternative and also for payment of entire amount for the course of Rs.18,838/-, she was compelled to stick to continue her course with BTC and with hope to get such relief. But most unfortunately the course had not been completed within the specified time but complainant very shockingly lost her job and if the course would have been completed in time then there was no question of the complainant to lose her job and in the above circumstances, complainant has prayed for refund of the entire amount with interest for non-completion of the course in due time and also for loss of her job etc. On the other hand op by filing written version submitted that the op completed the course within period as per representation but subsequently due to lots of amendments came in both for direct as well as indirect taxation w.e.f. 1st April 2013 i.e. major changes made under VAT Act 2003, Central Sales Tax Act 1956, Profession Tax Act 1979, Income Tax Act 1961, Service Tax Act 1994 etc. when all those students including complainant requested to the op to extend the course for coaching or lessoning all recent amendments at least for 3 months and not only that, they offered op to pay additional fees for that extended period. However, op as per request of the students including complainant even for their satisfaction out of moral obligation voluntarily without taking any fees or remuneration gave lesson to all the students so that after completion of the course in course of their job any student may not have to face any trouble in job in this faculty and the examination was held on 02.09.2013 and 09.09.2013 and during the period candidates were 85 in total and after that due to puja vacations the said institute was closed. But however after reopening the institution op tried to publish the result within very short period after minute scrutiny of the answer script papers and practically there was no grievance on the part of the other students but only of this complainant. But there was no fault on the part of the op and there was no negligence and deficiency on the part of the op. Further it is submitted that the complainant did not appear in the examination which was held on 02.09.2013 and 09.09.2013 because she could not submit her mark sheet of graduation and she became very aggrieved and dissatisfied with the institution for not allowing her to sit for the said examination without production of mark sheet of the graduation. Further op also applied for receptionist cum counselor in the institution of the op against the advertisement published on 02.06.2012 and 03.06.2012 in the Ananda Bazar Patrika but she was not selected for the said post, therefore she became very furious and also gave a verbal threaten to the op institution and that is the main object and purpose to file the present complaint and in the above circumstances, op has prayed for dismissal of this case claiming it as vexatious claim. Decision with reasons On proper study of the complaint and the written version and also considering the very exhaustive argument of the complainant, we have gathered that complainant’s main grievance is that she lost her job for extension of the said course. But after considering the op’s written version including the argument of the op, it is clear that course was completed within 12 months. But admitted position is that all the students requested the op to give them further lesson in respect of the amended provision of different Tax Act and no doubt it is undisputed fact that op without taking any further amount or remuneration from 85 students gave them said training in respect of amended act on different tax act for one day in a week and it was continued up to 9 months. Thereafter all the students appeared but complainant did not appear for examination. So, considering that fact it is clear that it is the choice of the candidate whether he/she shall have to take additional class or not. When that coaching had been given by the op at free of cost but at the request of the student and op gave such coaching to the student in respect of amended tax laws, so in our view that approach on the part of the op is no doubt highly appreciable. Fact remains that op is a concerned to train the graduates to prepare themselves professionally fit to take up such file of the clients for defending before different authorities of taxation and it is no doubt a professional course, having its no authenticity by any government concern. Practically op is a coaching center to give coaching in respect of taxation laws affairs to those who are willing to learn it and to be a professional consultant, they shall have to go there. In fact one year course had already been completed and additional coaching period for 9 months was given at free of cost but it was done as per request of the student. So, the said period cannot be treated as extension of that training period. But it was given by the op only to give further knowledge whether to the students who are trying to establish themselves as professional consultants in respect of tax affairs. So, considering that fact, it is clear that it was the choice of the complainant to continue the additional coaching period for 9 months, she may not attend it and in that case she may continue her job. But in such sort of course it is the option of the students or the trainee whether he/she shall have to continue or not, if it was urgent to continue in service as required he/she must not have to continue extended period of course and but for that reason op may not be blamed. Moreover in this case there is no allegation against the op about the deficiency and negligence on the part of the op in conducting the course or about the training matter ete. and in view of the above findings we are convinced to hold that complainant has failed to prove deficiency and negligence on the part of the op or any sort of unfair practice on the part of the op and for which there is no merit in the complaint. Thus the complaint fails. Hence, it is ORDERED That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest against the op but without any cost.
| | [HON'ABLE MR. Ashok Kumar Chanda] MEMBER[HON'ABLE MR. Bipin Muhopadhyay] PRESIDENT[HON'ABLE MRS. Sangita Paul] MEMBER | | 
