BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Sunil Kumar Anand son of Sh. Raj Kumar Anand r/o H.No.3874, Sector 22/D, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

Digiblitz Institute of Technology through its President, Tower A, 3^rd Floor, DLF Infocity Developers Ltd., Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh 160101.

                                  ..…Opposite Party

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Hitender Kansal, Adv.proxy for Sh.P.M.Goyal,                           Advocate for complainant

Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Adv. for OP

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainant opted for a Job Guaranteed Programme floated by the OP under which an aptitude and technical entrance test was to be cleared and he was to pay a sum of Rs.48,000/- towards fee for Nexgen. IT – JAVA/J2EE and SOA (Service Oriental Architecture) which included the fee towards SOA.  Under the job guarantee programme he was to be enrolled upon the rolls of the OP for an initial stipend of Rs.6,000/- and thereafter was to be paid Rs.10,000/- from 1.9.2009 for two years. He cleared the aptitude and technical test. The  course was for a period of nine months in which he was to be taught three different languages but was taught Core Java only. Even the stipend was paid for three months starting from June to August 2009 and the OP started evading their responsibility and thereafter with the motive to terminate the services of the complainant they wrote letter dated 28.8.2009 whereby they complained of him not taking interest in the work. Thereafter the complainant’s father wrote a detailed letter to the President of the OP highlighting the irregularities in response to which he received reply whereby the President admitted that in spite of lapse of nine months the complainant was not taught the promised J2EE and SOA languages but made it clear that the services of the complainant were not required any more.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             In their written reply the OP did not dispute the facts with regard to duration and  fee for the course; that initially he was to be paid stipend @Rs.6,000/- per month and thereafter Rs.10,000/- per month w.e.f. 1.9.2009 for two years.  However, it has been denied that the complainant had cleared the aptitude and technical entrance test or that he was not taught J2EE and SOA.  It has been submitted that in fact JAVA & J2EE were one and the same course and further that the complainant himself was not interested and remained casual.  It has been denied that the answering OP resorted to tactics in order to evade their liability.  It has been pleaded that rather the complainant himself was not interested in any of the jobs entrusted to him.  The receipt of letter from the complainant’s father has been admitted.  It has been denied that the services of the complainant were ever terminated.  Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record including the written arguments. 

5.             This transaction has two facts, one is the training period for which fee is charged and the second is providing of job after completion of training for which salary is to be given by the OP.

6.             It is admitted by the OP that they had issued the advertisement to provide SOA(Service Oriental Architecture) and Nexgen.IT-JAVA/J2EE under the Job Guarantee Programme regarding which a hand bill Annexure C-1 was issued.  It is also admitted that the complainant applied for the said training and appeared in the aptitude test upon which he was admitted to the 9 months training and he paid a course fee of Rs.48,000/-. Annexure C-2 is the appointment into training program and agreement for fee showing that he would be granted a stipend of Rs.6,000/- per month for 3 months starting from the 7^th month of training program upon complete payment of the course fee. In this manner out of the training period of 9 months, the complainant was to be trained for first 6 months and thereafter the stipend of Rs.6,000/- per month was to be paid to him for next 3 months.  Annexure C-3 to C-6 show that the course fee of Rs.48,000/- was paid by him. The complainant admitted that he had been attending the course for 6 months and thereafter the stipend of Rs.6,000/- per month was given to him for 3 months making it a total of 9 months of his training.  There is no dispute about it that the complainant has not been able to learn anything about J2EE and SOA. In the opening line of para number 4 of the complaint he has mentioned that he was taught Core Java only and had not been taught J2EE and SOA as promised by the OP.  On the other hand the contention of the OP is that infact these programmes could be learnt by the complainant only if he had learnt JAVA first. Admittedly the complainant had done B.Tech and he nowhere mentioned if computer programming was his subject.  He was doing MBA Part II from NIS Institute, Sector 36, Chandigarh and during that period he thought of learning the computer programme for which he took this training. The complainant was not the only trainee in the programme. The OP has attached the copies of the attendance sheets showing that there were 15 trainees in the programme and that the other 14 have been able to learn JAVA/J2EE and SOA programming then it becomes doubtful as to why the complainant has not been able to learn the same.  It shows that the complainant was not taking any interest in the computer programming and it may not be of his liking due to which he did not show any interest in gaining the experience of computer programming.  The OP has produced the affidavits of Ravneet Kaur, Nidhi Patwal, Ravneet Dhyani, Taranjeet Singh and Divakar Sharma who had also been the co-trainees of the complainant.  Their contention is that the courses Nexgen.IT-JAVA/J2EE and SOA were duly offered and completed by the OP company.  It therefore cannot be said if the OP was deficient in rendering any service.  They had been training him for 9 months and had also been paying him stipend of Rs.6,000/- per month for 3 months alongwith other trainees but even then the complainant did not pick up the programme and was not upto the mark.  Take for example the case of any other student who pays the fees and attends the classes but if in the exam he fails, the school/college cannot be said to be deficient in rendering service and cannot be asked to refund the fee.  In the present case also there is therefore no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

7.             The complainant in para number 4 of the complaint has mentioned that when he asked Business Development Manager, Mr.Gourav Sogi for imparting J2EE and SOA training thereon he used to reply that he(complainant) had already been given job and therefore he should not be worried about J2EE and SOA. Till the filing of the complaint the complainant never lodged a complaint about his not being given the training on these programmes or that the said programmes were not being offered to him. The Learned Counsel for the OP has argued that on the basis of the affidavits R-4 of Ravneet Kaur, R-5 of Nidhi Patwal, R-6 of Ravi Dhyani, R-7 of Taranjeet Singh and R-8 of Divakar Sharma, the complainant was never regular in attending the sessions of training and was never interested to do the various jobs given to him by his seniors.  According to him the complainant used to speak in a harsh manner with their seniors as well as trainers and always preferred to sit idle instead of performing his duties. It is argued that the affidavit of Mr.Gourav Sogi has not been produced by the complainant to prove that the words as mentioned in para number 4 of the complaint were ever uttered by him. Rather it may be the attitude of the complainant not to learn anything because he had been already given the job and thereafter he never worried about JAVA/J2EE and SOA.  It appears the complainant has mentioned his own views by putting them in the mouth of Mr.Gourav Sogi. If the complainant himself was not interested in learning the programmes offered to him, he cannot blame the OP.

8.             The Learned Counsel for the OP has referred to Annexure R-2 which are the appraisal reports for the period from 1.01.2009 to 30.03.2009 and 1.04.2009 to 30.06.2009 showing that the performance of the complainant was very poor and he could not be confirmed for permanent job. Annexure C-8 is the copy of the letter dated 28.08.2009 issued to the complainant by the OP intimating to him that his attitude towards the work and his performance was far from being satisfactory, that he was not taking things seriously, not showing any interest in taking responsibilities and not putting any effort to improve his performance.  He was shifted to another branch.  The entire evidence referred to above shows that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complainant himself did not appear to be serious to learn the training programme.

9.             There is no dispute about it that the complainant alongwith others was given training for the period of 9 months and he was given stipend for 3 months as promised by the OP. There was no deficiency on the part of the OP and the contention of the complainant for the refund of Rs.48,000/- charged from him as course fee cannot  be allowed.

10.           As regards the second aspect of this complaint, the contention of the complainant is that after the training period of 9 months he was to be given a regular job by the OP and a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month was to be given to him in view of the appointment letter Annexure C-7.  We are of the view that we cannot issue any direction to the OP to give appointment to the complainant because the Consumer Fora have no Jurisdiction to implement the relationship of master and servant.  The fact that the complainant has not been given a job by the OP is not a Consumer dispute and is beyond the purview of the Consumer Fora.  No such direction therefore can be given to the OP.

11.           Otherwise also when the complainant himself has mentioned in para number 4 of the complaint that he does not know anything about J2EE and SOA which were to be taught to him by the OP, he cannot be given a regular appointment by the OP. The OP could give regular appointment only to those persons who have learnt the course taught by them.  Since the complainant is blank about it, he is not fit to be given any such appointment and therefore it cannot be said if there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP.

12.           The Learned Counsel for the complainant has also argued that the OP became inimical towards the complainant due to which he has been shunted out whereas the other trainees have been retained and are being given stipend and salary.  This argument rather goes against the complainant.  Needless to mention that the OP required professionals for running their programmes. They recruited 15 trainees for this purpose to whom the training was given.  If the other 14 have been able to learn what was offered to them but the complainant did not learn anything about the courses JAVA/J2EE and SOA, the fault lies with the complainant and not with the trainers. In place of complainant, the OP would be requiring the services of some new trainee to whom again they would be required to give 9 months training. No employer would leave a trained person and allow the work to suffer.  If the complainant had been upto the mark, the OP would have been willing to give him the appointment but the record as referred to above shows that he is not competent to be retained for regular job.  We are therefore of the opinion that the OP cannot be said to be inimical towards the complainant but they are looking after the interest of their company for which incompetent persons are being avoided by them.  It cannot be termed as bias or enmity. 

13.           In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint. The same is accordingly dismissed.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.