COMPLAINT FILED: 26.03.2009<br /> DISPOSED ON: 27.08.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 27TH AUGUST 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.720/2009<br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Kantesh K.M. S/o. Mallesh.K.G.Aged about 24 years,Kyanahalli,\Sakaleshpura Taluk,Hassan District.Advocate – Sri. S.A.AhmedV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Bijoy Das (Centre head of NIIT Jayanagar Centre)No.75, E main, 4th Block,Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 011.Advocate – Smt.Shanthakumari<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> 2. Complainant being lured away with the advertisement and publicity given by the OP who promised job assurance on the completion of the course called as Accellerated NIIT thought of joining the said course. In that regard he paid the course fee of Rs.47,800/-, but OP issued the receipt only for Rs.41,400/- . The said course ended in 30-03-2008. Complainant got through the said course. Thereafter patiently waited for job placement by the OP, but unfortunately till today OP is unable to get him a job as promised. Thus he became an unemployed graduate youth having Engineering Degree with NIIT. The repeated request and demands made by him to OP went in futile. For no fault of his he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP and he is advised to file this complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. On appearance, OP filed the version contending that the complainant has not disclosed when actually he accrued the cause of action to file this complaint. Complaint is bad for mis-joinder of necessary party so also for want of jurisdiction. After the completion of the course by the complainant successfully, OP provided numerous job placement opportunities. Complainant with some excuses not attended the placement interviews, for that OP cannot be blamed. OP never assured to get him a job or secure a job, but it promised to assist him in getting the proper placement. OP discharged his obligation. If the complainant has not got the job it is his look out. OP is nothing to do with that. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complaint is devoid of merits. OP is not liable to pay the compensation. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant is the Degree Holder in Biotechonology and was in search of the suitable job. In the meantime he came to known about the OP and the course called as ANIIT where in OP promise to provide the job if any candidate completes the said course. Complainant opted to the said course. As per the demand made by the OP, he paid course fee of Rs.47,800/-. Of course OP admits the receipt of only Rs.41,400/-. It is further contended by the complainant that he did complete the said course by the end of 30.03.2008 and got the certificate. Thereafter he has patiently waited for job placement as per the assurance given by the OP.<br /> <br /> 8. According to the complainant OP failed to fulfill its assurance in searching him a job. Because of the hostile attitude of the OP he is unable to get the job early and even till today he is the unemployed graduate youth. Hence he suffered both mental agony and financial loss. On the other hand it is contended by the OP that after the completion of the said course successfully by the complainant they did provide numerous placement opportunities to the complainant. But complainant failed to attend the placement interviews. For this contention basically there is no proof. So that defence of the OP cannot be considered without there being corroborative evidence. When OP has promised or assured the job, if a candidate completes their course it is encumbant upon OP to discharge its obligation. It can’t wash of its hands simply by saying that they promised to provide only placement assistance and not the job assurance. Here we find the deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 9. Though complainant invested his hard earned money and paid the course fee and completed the course successfully unfortunately he is unable to secure the job to his qualification experience, naturally complainant must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss. Of course complainant has claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. We do not find any basis for the said exorbitant compensation. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the justice will be met by directing the OP to refund half of the course fee because the complainant is still as on today continue to be an unemployed graduate youth. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> Complaint is allowed in part.<br /> <br /> OP is directed to refund Rs.20,500/- to the complainant in view of nature of dispute no order as to cost.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 27th day of August 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> NRS<br />