Delhi

North East

CC/217/2011

Yatendra Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

04 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 217/11

 

In the matter of:

 

	Yatendra Kumar A-118, Gali No. 2, Bhagirthi Vihar Delhi-94. Post office Gokulpuri	Complainant
	Versus
	Branch Manager Jetking Hardware Networking Institute Yamuna VIhar, Delhi-53.	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

07.07.2011 13.04.2018 04.05.2018

 

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

 

 

 

ORDER

1. The case of the complainant is that he was a student of OP bearing Roll No. YU014209 Batch No. 208 and had enrolled himself with OP for vocational course / training programme for hardware networking for the period 31.08.2009 to 21.12.2010. As per the Money Back Guarantee (MBG) agreement dated 28.10.2009 entered into between the OP as first part and complainant as second part thereof, clause VI of the said agreement clearly stipulated that if the complainant completes the course successfully, the OP agrees to undertake to get him/her a suitable job within a period of three month after declaration of the result, subject to terms and conditions, the relevant to the present case is condition no.8 which stipulated that the OPs agrees that in the event it is unable to provide a job to the complainant, who has complied with all the terms and conditions of the agreement within a period of three months as stated herein above, OP will refund the fees paid by the complainant, except service tax, royalty, total books costs and exam fee within one month from the date. The complainant has stated that this clause of MBG agreement entitles the complainant to refund of fees deposited with the OP on fulfillment of T & C which the complainant duly fulfilled during the course of his training programme with OP. However the complainant wrote several letters to the OP regarding the same but OP never replied / responded to any. After completion of course the placement officer of OP misguided the complainant and sent him for interviews to some places but only to harass the complainant where in several companies he was told that they do not hire freshers or was given wrong addresses of companies by OP, at some places he was informed no vacancy and at some companies he was asked for valid driving license and motorcycle as a pre requisite and a compulsory requirement for the job. The complainant has further submitted that in one of the companies namely WWW Technology Pvt Ltd, the complainant was being forced to sign on blank papers which he refused to and was demanded a valid DL and motorcycle again. Therefore, the complainant submitted that he was completely misguided by the OP in the name of the interviews with the companies that he was sent to by the OP. The complainant further submitted that he spoke to the center manager of OP about the placement issues faced by him but he told the complainant that the work was assigned to placement officer of OP who was the authority to deal the issues. The said placement officer told the complainant not to waste her time and complainant was told by her that the complainant will be informed as and when there is vacancy. The complainant had taken his father to OPs office who requested the OP officer to get the complainant placed as he had arranged for his fees despite extreme finance hardship to which the OP told the father of the complainant that the time period of placement of complainant has expired due to fault of the complainant since he was not on time or in uniform and lacked technical skill and therefore OP cannot get him place anywhere. Contrarily, however the complainant stated that at the time of admission the complainant was assured by OP of a job of Rs. 25,000/-30,000/- per month with MNC like IBM, HCL, DELL, SAMSUNG etc but they all turned out to be false assurances. The complainant has further stated that when he wrote to OP that since he had fulfilled and abided by all the TNC of the MBG agreement and demanded refund of his fees failing he shall proceed legally against the OP, the OP called complainant to the institute and challenged him that they will prove that they had provided placement to the complainant but complainant only failed to join. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint praying for refund of fees under the MBG rule from the OP. Complainant has attached the fees slip, MBG affidavit / articles of agreement dated 28.10.2009, correspondence of OP dated 13.05.2011 27.05.2011 and 14.06.2011 asking for refund of fees, ID card with OP on the reverse of which is the course fee charges to the tune of Rs. 58,459/- certificate of performance dated 31.08.2009 awarded to the complainant by the OP, marksheet of examination held in June 2010 and December 2010 (Semester 1 and 2), certificate of participation in workshop of OP dated 23.04.2010 and certificate of completion of Jet Edge Programme with Grade A by the complainant given by OP on 21.12.2010.
2. Notice was issued to the OP which entered appearance on 08.11.2011 and filed its written statement on 05.01.2012  in which OP, while admitting that the complainant had completed Jet King Certified Hardware and Networking premium course from its franchise center at Yamuna Vihar Branch, New Delhi and that MBG agreement dated 28.10.2009 was entered into between the parties, took the preliminary defence that the complainant has filed the complaint to recover the course fee only on the basis of signed agreement under the MBG scheme which recovery on the basis of agreement comes under civil courts jurisdiction. The OP further stated that the complainant did not join job despite getting selection letters from companies like R.S. Solutions and Capstech Network Pvt Ltd where he failed to submit his documents at the time of appointment. The OP stated that the complainant failed and avoided to go for interviews and did not follow the terms and conditions of MBG agreement which clearly mentioned that in the event the second part (complainant herein) fails to cooperate and / or fails to go for interviews etc with prospective employers, party of the first part (OP) shall not be liable to get job to the party of second part (complainant) and therefore question of money back does not arise. The OP placed on record several interview letters/ student introduction letters from the date 17.01.2011 to 10.05.2011 for the complainant just after completion of the course in support of his defence that it had sent the complainant to several companies for interviews just after the completion of course and stated that the complainant was not interested to go for interviews and even after selection in several companies and joining the job, the complainant refused to join those jobs and in support of his defence has attached the selection letters/ appointment letters/ e-mail from R.S. Solutions and Capstech Network Pvt Ltd. OP denied that the OP or the placement officer misguided / misleaded or harass the complainant in any manner and on the contrary had communicated timely to the complainant about vacancies, job, eligibility, salary, timing of interview etc. OP denied having assured the complainant of providing job of salary amount of Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 30,000/- and submitted that the MBG agreement clearly mentioned that OP had agreed to get the complainant job company within three months of declaration of final result of the course subject to complainant complying with terms and conditions of the MBG agreement and having undertaken to take up the job as arranged by the OP for a minimum of six months. The OP submitted that the salary and job is totally based on work experience and technical skill and denied any rude behavior with the complainant by the OP or its placement officer or any threat extended to the complainant. The OP submitted that the complainant is working in the computer field on the basis of his technical skills and has no job requirement as on date. Lastly the OP urged that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as it is blackmailing tactic adopted by the complainant to mislead this Forum by twisting the facts.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement of OP was filed by the complainant wherein the complainant rebutted the defence of the OP and denied the OP having provided placements or interviews calls or job opportunities to the complainant. The complainant denied having received any appointment letter from R.S. Solutions and WWW Technology Pvt Ltd either from by OP or its placement service and submitted that R.S. Solutions Pvt Ltd had refused to hire the complainant without any cause or reason while WWW Technology Pvt Ltd tried to get signature of the complainant on blank papers and when the complainant refused to do the same, they rejected the complainant.  The complainant further submitted that the appointment letters allegedly sent by OP through e-mail is sent with respect to selection of Yatender Sharma whereas the name of the complainant is Yatendra Kumar. The complainant rebutted the allegation of OP that he intentionally failed or avoided to go for interviews and submitted that OP never gave any opportunity to him and the agreement of placement executed by OP was with a malafide intention by OP to extort money from the complainant. The complainant further denied the allegation of OP that he had not followed the terms and conditions of MBG agreement and stated that it is the OP which failed to perform its part of the agreement. The complainant denied that OP sent him for interviews to several companies or that he was not interested to go for interviews or join jobs because of his hypothetical expectation of salary of Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 30,000/- range per month. The complainant denied any cooperation from the placement officer of the OP or that she was approachable for any difficulty / problem faced by students regarding placement issues and submitted that the placement officer never communicated to the complainant about the vacancies or followed procedure before sending student for interviews or confirmed job eligibility, requirement, salary, timing of interviews etc to concerned companies in a proper manner on the notice board or other communication medium to the students or prepare introduction letters of students in which the placement officer should have mentioned the address of company, name of interviewer and given proper guidance to the students for conducting mock interview. The complainant further denied that R. S. Solutions had appointed him. The complainant also denied having given an undertaking in the MBG agreement to work and take up job in large or small company, workshop etc as arranged by the OP for minimum period of six months.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant reiterating his grievance in the complaint against the OP.
5. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by Vishal Gupta, Director of M/s Crescent Education Pvt Ltd, franchise of OP in which the OP reinstated the defence taken in the written statement and exhibited the student introduction letters from 17.01.2011 to 10.05.2011 and selection letters/ appointment letters/ e-mails of R.S. Solutions and Capstech Network Pvt Ltd all pertaining to the complainant.
6. In compliance of directions issued by this Forum vide order dated 07.08.2014 to file details of fees and amount to be deducted as per clause 8 of the MBG agreement, the complainant filed the details of fees and its breakup paid to the OP between 31.08.2009 to 18.08.2010 to the tune of Rs. 59,921/- inclusive of service tax, exam fee etc on 09.09.2014 before this Forum.
7. Written arguments were filed by complainant in which the complainant, while pressing the MBG agreement and relief entitled therein, claimed full right to refund of fees of Rs. 58,459/- from the OP since he had fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the above mentioned agreement and the OP had failed to provide any job or placement to the complainant and had failed to respond to the communication of the complainant dated 13.05.2011, 27.05.2011 and 14.06.2011 demanding refund of fees in view of harassment faced by the complainant and deficient services provided by OP.
8. Written arguments were filed by the OP in which the OP apart from already reiterating its defence taken in written statement and evidence by way of affidavit, urged that the complainant in Para 8 of his rejoinder stated that he was ready to join job as per Government scale on the basis of his qualification and skills as per the course conducted by the complainant with the OP which demand itself shows the intention of the complainant that he is not interested to join a private job in private company and has filed the present complaint only to harass and blackmail the OP to demand the course fee back and if such an order for refund is passed by this Forum, every such student who is not interested to do the job because of any reason will definitely demand entire course fee refund from the OP. The OP further argued that it has invested huge money to get the franchisee and build up the infrastructure of the institute which is now a very reputed brand name since last more than seven years (2012) and spent a lot of money to provide better education and technical skills to the students which will suffer due to such malpractices. The OP further argued that no deficiency of service is done on its part qua the complainant since it had offered several placements, interviews calls and several jobs to the complainant who even after getting selection letters from the companies did not join them or submit the requisite documents. The OP expressed its ready willingness to provide ready placement to the complainant on priority basis if the complainant cooperates with the OP as well as employers of the companies. The OP further volunteered to provide skill grooming classes and such other facilities which may be helpful to the complainant to get job in various companies as per his technical skills and performance in interviews.
9. Additional written arguments were filed by the complainant in which the complainant stated that as per the MBG agreement dated 28.10.2009, the complainant was entitled to get refund of his fees due to non placement by OP after completion of course. The complainant further stated that despite efforts by this Forum to resolve the dispute between the parties by directing OP to get a suitable placement of the complainant, vide order sheet dated 07.05.2014 and 15.05.2014, the complainant was referred to certain companies but was rejected as a fresher lacking experience. Therefore, vide order dated 26.05.2014, this Forum had directed the complainant to join refresher course with the OP but OP not only misbehaved with the complainant but discriminated against him and status report was filed on 09.07.2014 by the complainant  and therefore vide order dated 07.08.2014 this Forum had directed the OP to file details of fees etc which instead was filed by the complainant on 09.09.2014. Therefore the complainant had raised certain arguments in form of a questionnaire arguing that the clause IV and clause 8 of MBG agreement dated 28.10.2009 was binding on OP and that complainant has denied that it did not cooperate or failed to go for interviews as alleged by the OP in its written statement. The complainant further argued that the OP has engaged in unfair trade practice and guilty of deficiency of service and therefore complainant is entitled to refund of fees alongwith compensation for mental and physical harassment and agony and litigation cost.
10.  Most pertinently, forceful arguments have been forwarded by the complainant disputing the  veracity / validity / authenticity of student introduction letters and selection letters/ appointment letters/ e-mails filed by the OP from page 13 to 29 of its written statement as annexure 1 and 2 and exhibit DW1/1 and DW1/2 in evidence by way of affidavit with respect to the complainant to the effect that the complainant has disputed his signatures as being forged / fabricated and fake by the OP on the said letters and has even disputed the receipts on some of such correspondences apart from alleging that certain such letters were bogus letters misused by OP to misguide this Forum into believing that the OP had got the complainant placed with companies or had facilitated several interviews calls for him. The complainant has also highlighted the contradiction in the letter on page 29 of written statement filed by the OP written by Capstech Network to the placement officer of OP according to which the complainant had been selected by Capstech network and had join the company from 7^th February 2011 as hardware engineer which was in clear contradiction to the averment made by the OP in Para 4 of its written statement where the OP have stated that despite complainant getting selection letter from Capstech, he had not joined it. The complainant has alleged that the said letter is a bogus letter which is undated and unsigned and bears no postal receipts and has disputed its authenticity like other such letters. Therefore, the complainant has alleged forgery, collusion between OP and various such companies whose correspondences the OP has placed on record alongwith its written statement at a later stage of arguments. However, the complainant did not file or prefer any application for seeking FSL report with respect to signature verification.
11.  From the above examination it is quite clear that the issue involved in the complaint is not a simplicitor case of deficiency of service but involves serious allegations of fraud or forgery which are beyond the scope of summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The examination of this complaint would involve voluminous evidence examination and cross examination, admission-denial of documents and the same are not possible under the summary proceedings before this Forum. The consumer Forums have been setup to grant speedy remedy by way of proceedings which are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs Munimahesh Patel IV (2006) CPJ 1 (SC) by holding that such matters related to forgery and fraud cannot be decided in proceedings under CPA as has been followed in TRAI Foods Ltd Vs National Insurance Company Ltd III (2012) CPJ 17 (SC). The Hon’ble National Commission in Bright Transport Company Vs Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd II (2012) CPJ 151 (NC) held that complaint which are based on allegation of fraud, forgery etc and trial of which would required voluminous evidence and consideration are not to be entertained by this commission. In a recent Judgment passed by Hon’ble National Commission in Mittal Education Society Vs Indian Overseas Bank I (2018) CPJ 394 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission while dealing with case of forged cheques and forged NEFT RTG & allegations had upheld the law settled on the issue by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and its own precedents laid in case of P N Khanna vs Bank of India and the Tax Publisher Vs Chairman and MD, UCO Bank and Ors. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble National Commission had dismiss the complaint with liberty to the complainant to move the appropriate civil court having jurisdiction over the mater for redressal for his grievance.
12.  In view of the settled law on the issue of fraud and forgery which the complainant has alleged in the present case against the OP which cannot be adjudicated upon in summary proceedings before  this Forum under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as the same would entail detailed investigation / examination / cross examination and admission denial of documents, the complaint is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the complainant to file the same before the appropriate civil court for seeking remedy / relief.
13.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
14.   File be consigned to record room.
15.   Announced on 04.05.2018

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member