1.    This is an appeal filed by the complainant against order dated 9.4.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No.1040 of 2008.

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant enrolled himself for Computer Course i.e. Oracle  9i DBA Course with the Chandigarh Branch of OP on 3.10.2007 and paid full fee of Rs.14,000/-.  His course was consisting of four modules to be completed within a period of 4-5 months approximately. The course was to be started from 8.10.2007 but the OP failed to start it within a stipulated time. The OP had ultimately started the course and only a part of it could be completed by the first week of March, 2008.  It was averred that due to some office engagements, the complainant took leave from 24.3.2008 to 31.3.2008 and returned on 1.4.2008 to continue with his course but the complainant shocked that the Computer Centre of OP was locked.  He telephoned the Head Office of Computer Centre (OP), who told the complainant that the OP has been closed its Chandigarh Centre and if the complainant want to complete the computer course, he would join the Noida Head Office or wait for the opening of new computer center at Chandigarh and after waiting for sometime, the complainant sent an e-mail to the Noida Head Office, who replied that if the complainant wanted to complete the course, he could have continue the same at Noida Head Office after paying Re-registration Fee of Rs.1,000/-.  It was averred that complainant could not join the said course in Noida as he was settled in Chandigarh and he sought refund of fee, but all in vain.  A legal notice was also sent to the OP but it was not replied.  On the above said act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence, the complaint was filed. 

3.       Reply was filed by the OP in which the OP had admitted that the complainant to be their student and stated that the whole four modules were to be completed in 55 days, which was started from 1.10.2007 onwards.  It was also submitted that the complainant attended the course from 1.10.2007 till 31.10.2007 and thereafter he did not turn up and after 31.10.2007 the complainant had not attended even a single lecture and it is further submitted by the OP that if calculated he would have already finished the first two modules of the course and would have also covered three days of module 3 of the course as Annexure R-2 and it was denied that the course was delayed.  It was further submitted that the term of the course was already over on 30.11.2007 and he himself did not attend the course and got it completed within time. Therefore,  there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  It was stated that the OP shifted their office from Chandigarh to Noida only in Feb., 2008 whereas the complainant was absent from 1.11.2007 onwards and because of his own fault, he could not complete his course.  Rest of the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.    The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions.  

5.    The District Forum dismissed the complaint as there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and further held that the complaint was frivolous and not sustained. 

6.       Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant. Sh.Pankaj, Advocate has appeared on behalf of appellant and none appeared on behalf of respondent.

7.    In the appeal, the appellant pleaded that the learned District Forum has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent had not produced any document stating that the course was to be completed in 55 days whereas the complainant has placed on record the brochure of Core Database in which it was stated that the course of 108 hours and after each module tests were to be conducted. The learned District Forum has failed to appreciate that the complainant had been attending the course regularly and the attendance sheet produced by the respondent clearly shows that the complainant had been present in all the lectures in the month of October, 2007 and by that time two complete modules were completed and the third module was in progress. If two modules were completed as stated by the respondent, then no test/results were brought on record by the respondent. The respondent did not place on record any test given by the complainant and the learned District Forum has also failed to appreciate the fact that there was no continuity of course by the respondent. The respondent has also miserably failed to prove that there was continuity on their part in completing the course. The learned District Forum has failed to touch all the merits of the case and the annexures annexed by the complainant in his complaint were not taken into consideration before deciding the complaint. The perusal of these documents clearly proves deficiency in service on the part of respondent. Hence, it is prayed by the appellant that the appeal may kindly be allowed and the order passed by the District Forum may kindly be set aside.

8.    After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it is not disputed that the complainant got himself enrolled for Computer Oracle 9i DBA Course with Chandigarh Branch of OP on 3.10.2007 and paid full fee of Rs.14,000/- vide annexure C-1. The course was consisted of four modules. The point for consideration before us is whether the complainant could not complete the said course for his own fault or due to the non provision of all facilities to complete the course or the complainant could not complete his course due to the closure of the center at Chandigarh. As per the averment made by the complainant, this course was to be completed within a period of 4-5 months approximately which was started late from 8.10.2007, which the OP failed to start at scheduled time. Finally the course started only a part of it could be completed by the first week of March, 2008. Moreover, the complainant alleged that there was a acute shortage and faculty in center and many a times the complainant had to return back without taking the lectures.

9.    On the other hand, the OP rebutted this and stated that the course was of total 55 days, covering four modules and it was started from 110.2007 and completed on 30.11.2007 whereas the OP closed their Chandigarh office in February, 2008. The complainant attended the course from 1.10.2007 till 31.10.2007 and thereafter he did not attend a single lecture. In reply the OP submitted that as per schedule of studies for the period for which the complainant attended the course he would have completed two modules and would have attended the course for 3 days for module 3. The complainant left the course or did not attend thereafter even though the centre was working thereafter. The OP vehemently denied and asserted that the course was started and finished on due date i.e. 1.10.2007 to 31.11.2007. It is further submitted that the complainant himself did not attend the course and could not get it completed within a time.

10.   We have come to the conclusion that the total course was of 55 days covering four modules which started on 1.10.2007 and finished on 30.11.2007. From the perusal of the file shows that the complainant had attended the course upto 31.10.2007 only and after that he did not attend the course. Moreover the complainant failed to produce any document by which a conclusion could be drawn that the above said course was of 4-5 months duration approximately, that means the OP had conducted the classes for the full duration of 55 days. It is the complainant who was not able to complete his course within stipulated time.

11.   It is correct that the complainant contacted the OP No.2 on 28.5.2008 and the OPs again offered him to take a fresh training after paying registration fee of Rs.1000/- to which complainant did not agree. In the meantime OP closed the center at Chandigarh even the OP out of courtesy and as a goodwill gesture offered the complainant to undergo training course at Noida after paying a nominal registration fee of Rs.1000/- because the training center at Chandigarh was closed by the OP and no new center was opened at Chandigarh. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP.

12.   In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Forum is well reasoned and legally sustainable in the eyes of law. Consequently the order passed by the District Forum is upheld and the appeal is dismissed as devoid of any merit without any order as to costs.

13.       Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.