Date of Filing: 15.12.2007<br /> Date of Order:30.09.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2503 OF 2007<br /> <br /> Ashwini G.<br /> No. 34, Sidde Gowda Street<br /> Susheela Road Cross<br /> Dodda Mavalli<br /> Bangalore 560 004 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> Frankfinn Institute of Air<br /> Hostess Training<br /> # 119/A/36, 1st Floor, Garla Garnet<br /> 9th Main Road, 4th Block<br /> Opp. R.V. College, Bangalore 560 011 Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant seeking amount of Rs. 92,000/- with compensation and costs from the opposite party. <br /> The facts of the case are that the complainant has paid Rs. 92,000/- to the opposite party institute for an Air Hostess training. The course was for a period of one year. The opposite party has not completed the course. It is stated by the complainant that opposite party has cheated her. As per the prospectus there must be 30.00 hrs of practical training inside the airbus 300 at Delhi for the in flight training which includes to & fro train fare, lodging, boarding and local transportation. Opposite party has not given response about the Delhi training and they are telling that they have got some problem with the aircraft. Complainant states that her father is no more and she has no income for the house. With a great difficulty her mother had taken money for interest. She thought that she could be support to the family and her brother is studying and she joined the course. She is not getting job on the ground that she has not completed the practical training. The age of the complainant barred since she has touched 24 years. Complainant states that she has faced many problems with institute. She has spent huge amount for assignments, presentation. Without completing the course the opposite party has issued letter saying that the complainant has completed the course. She was shocked to see that. Complainant is in deep depreciation and she had been cheated by giving dreams about her career and the complainant has not completed the course and not eligible for airline. Complainant is not interested to waste any more time. She had informed opposite party to pay back her fee of Rs. 92,000/-. Opposite party has to pay compensation for mental agony and harassment.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party was put in appearance through advocate and defence version filed stating complaint is not maintainable. Complainant has joined the opposite party training institute for Air Hostess course. After completion of the course opposite party instructed the complainant to attend training in Air bus as a practical training in New Delhi along with other students commencing from 21.04.2008 to 24.04.2008. But complainant never responded to the instructions. She failed to join the training programme. Even now the opposite party is ready and willing to send the complainant for the air bus training programme in New Delhi at the cost of the opposite party as per their course programme. It is submitted that opposite party does not guarantee placement which is clearly mentioned in the prospectus. The averments that opposite party cheated the complainant are all false. The averment that complainant is in deep depression is false. There is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Complainant has attended the course along with other students. The averment that complainant is entitled for repayment of fees of Rs. 92,000/- with interest are false. The opposite party submitted that complainant is not entitled for any compensation. Opposite party submitted that all modules of training has been completed to the complainant’s batch except Air Bus Training. The Air Bus Training was not available due to non availability of the Air Craft as there was a dispute between the owner of the Aircraft and the opposite party institute over the lease of Aircraft and the matter was pending before the New Delhi High Court. Because of this there was a small delay. As such even now, the opposite party is ready to send the complainant for the Air Bus Training at New Delhi. It is further submitted that air bus training is not charged separately and no extra amount payable for the same. It is part and parcel of the training schedule. Opposite party is a reputed institute and running 115 centers across India. Opposite party institute is not at all liable for her failure in securing the job. It is submitted even now the institute is ready to send her to New Delhi for training at the cost of the opposite party institute. Therefore, opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. Complainant has filed her affidavit evidence. On behalf of the opposite party also affidavit evidence filed. Arguments are heard.<br /> 4. The point for consideration is:<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of fees paid by her?<br /> 3. What relief and order?<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. It is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had joined diploma in Aviation, Hospitality and Traveling Management Course with the opposite party institute. The course period was from 16th June-2006 to 16th June-2007. It is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant has paid Rs.92,000/- fee for the diploma course of one year. The complainant has produced two receipts, one receipt is for Rs.13,000/- dated 18/6/2006 and another receipt is for Rs.79,000/- dated 23/6/2006. These two receipts have been issued by the opposite party institute. As per the case of the complainant and as per the prospectus the course includes 30 hours of practical training inside the Airbus-300 at Delhi for in flight training which includes to and fro train fare, lodging, boarding and local transportation. The complainant filed her complaint before this Forum on 15/12/2007 and she has submitted that already 5 months are over as per the course schedule. The opposite party institute had not given any response in respect of the practical training inside the Airbus at Delhi. When she has asked this training with the opposite party they submitted that they had some problem with the Aircraft and at some times they informed that they have to get information from the Head Office and the complainant submitted that her age is bar since she has touched 24 years and the Airlines are telling her that she is not eligible for the post. It is the case of the complainant that without completing the course the opposite party institute had issued a letter saying that she had completed the course and she was shocked to see the letter. The complainant submitted that she was in deep depression and she had been cheated by the opposite party by giving dreams about her carrier. The complainant has not completed the course and therefore she is not eligible for Airline service and the complainant submitted that she has wasted her money and also half year of her precious time. It is the case of the complainant that now she is not interested to waste any more time and she demanded the opposite party to pay back her amount of Rs.92,000/- with interest and compensation. The opposite party submitted that, complainant had joined the opposite party training institute for Air Hostess Course. The opposite party has submitted the defence that all modules of training have been competed to the complainant’s batch except Airbus training. It is the case of the opposite party that the Airbus training was not available due to non-availability of the Aircrafts as there was dispute between the owner of Aircraft and opposite party institute over the lease of Aircraft and the matter was pending before the New Delhi High Court. Because of this there was delay in giving Airbus training. It is the case of the opposite party that even now also opposite party is ready to send the complainant for the Airbus training at New Delhi. It is also the case of the opposite party that, Airbus training is not charged separately and no extra amount payable for the same. It is part and parcel of the training schedule. The learned Advocate for the opposite party has produced a copy of order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in O.S No.2395/2006 and submitted that since there was a litigation pending between the opposite party institute and proprietor of M/s Aviation (India) Pvt. Ltd.,. Due to the said litigation Aircraft was not available for giving practical training to the students. The interim application filed by the opposite party in the Original Suit filed before the High Court of Delhi was allowed and the defendant in that suit is restrained from interfering or obstructing usage of the stationery Airbus by the complainant (present institution) on the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement dated 5/1/2005 till 31/12/2007 or the date of final adjudication in the suit, whichever is earlier. The Delhi High Court has passed orders in the suit on 14/9/2007. So as per the order passed in the original suit by the Delhi High Court, the opposite party had got right to make use of Airbus of the Aviation (India) Pvt. Ltd.,. The opposite party has also clearly admitted in the version that the complainant and students of her batch was not given Airbus training on account of non-availability of the Aircraft as there was a dispute pending between owner of the Aircraft and the opposite party institution over the lease of the Aircraft. Therefore, the delay on the part of opposite party to impart practical Airbus training is admitted. It is also admitted case that the complainant was not given Airbus training as per the course schedule. It is the case of the opposite party that Airbus training is the part and parcel of the training schedule and it is mandatory one. It is also admitted case of the opposite party that Airbus training is not separately charged and no extra amount payable by the candidates by the said training. The opposite party has submitted that even now it is ready to send the complainant to New Delhi for Airbus training at its costs. As per the agreement executed by the opposite party Clause-21 states there must be 30 hours training spread over 5 days in the Airbus 300 parked in Dwarka, New Delhi and said training is a integral part of the course and it is “Mandatory” for every “Students” to attend it. It is also specially mentioned in the agreement that if the student does not attend training in Airbus he/she shall not be awarded Diploma Certificate. It is also obligation and commitment of the opposite party that it shall arrange for to and fro to attend the Airbus training and shall arrange for lodging and boarding of the student. So, by the agreement and defence version it is very clear that giving Airbus training was mandatory, it is a part and parcel of the training course and as per the Clause-21 of the agreement without practical Airbus training student shall not be awarded Diploma Certificate. The course joined by the complainant in this case should have completed on or before 16th June-2007. But admittedly the opposite party institute did not give Airbus training to the complainant, because a litigation pending between the opposite party institution and owners of Aviation. As per the opposite party defence Aircraft was not available for giving training. The order in the original suit was passed by the Delhi High Court on 14th September-2007. That means till 14th September-2007 the use of Aircraft was not available to the opposite party institution. Therefore, there was definitely a delay on the part of the opposite party to complete the course. The complainant is nothing to do with the original suit filed by the opposite party against the owners of the Aircraft in the Delhi High Court. Admittedly, the opposite party has not informed the complainant at the time of getting admission that such original suit is pending before the Delhi High Court and Airbus training will be given after getting orders from the Delhi High Court. So, under these circumstances, the delay caused in this case for giving Airbus training, the complainant cannot be held responsible. It is the sole responsibility and obligation and commitment of the opposite party institution to complete one year course by giving Airbus training to the students, because Airbus training is the part and parcel of the course and it was mandatory training for every students. No doubt after filing complaint by the complainant the opposite party has come forward that even now opposite party is ready to send the complainant for Airbus training to New Delhi. The complainant submitted that now she is not interested in the course because she is now barred to get any post of Air Hostess. Because she had touched 24 years and the Airlines are refusing to give job to her on the ground that she is not eligible for the job. At the time of argument we also enquired and asked the complainant to go for Airbus training as offered by the opposite party, but the complainant flatly refused the offer and she had filed a memo stating that she is not interested to take training as she had wasted two years 3 months time by now and submitted that a justice be provided to her by refunding amount paid with compensation. As the facts now stand, it is clear that the opposite party was not in a position to complete the course as per the agreement dated 8th June-2006. Because as per Clause-21 of the agreement 30 hours practical training spread over 5 years in the Airbus is an integral part of the course and it is also mandatory for every student to attend it. For the delay in giving Airbus training to the complainant she is not the cause or the responsible in any manner. Because admittedly the opposite party institution had filed a suit against the Aviation (India) Pvt. Ltd., in Delhi High Court when the complainant was admitted to the course. The Delhi High Court had allowed the interim application of the opposite party on 14th September-2007 and thereafter only the opposite party got right to make use of the Airbus of the Aviation. So, under these circumstances whatever the training given to the complainant is not helpful to her. Without completion of Airbus training the Diploma Certificate cannot be awarded to her and moreover the complainant submitted that she is touching 24 years and she is not eligible to get job in the Airlines on account of her age. So, under these circumstances, the complainant lost an opportunity to get job in the Airlines. The opposite party will not be justified in law or on equity in refusing to refund the fee received from the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that she is coming from very poor family and her father is also no more and she had no income. With great difficulty her mother had arranged money and paid the fee. It is also the case of the complainant that her mother had taken the amount on loan and paying the interest. Therefore, she has prayed justice from the hands of this Forum. The complainant also submitted that she had spent huge amount for assignment presentation, traveling etc.,. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh in FIIT JEE LIMITED V/S ISHAAN PUNJ reported in CTJ 885 August-2008 issue. The Hon’ble Commission observed at para-9 and 10 of the judgment as under:-<br /> <br /> 9. It is an admitted fact that respondent (complainant) had deposited a sum of Rs. 76,589/- in lumpsum as enrolment fee. The fee per year comes to Rs.38,294.50. Admittedly the course was for two years and the respondent had attended the classes of appellant up to January, 2007 and thereafter he found that it was not worthwhile to proceed further with the course and had requested for refund of the balance amount of one year. The contract of charging fee in advance for two years is certainly an unfair trade practice adopted by the appellant as well as other private institutions. Such institutions are exploiting the students who are vulnerable. Certainly such a contract to charge fee in advance of two years is unconscionable and is not enforceable. Such private institutions, coaching centers and education institutes should not be allowed to forfeit fee of a student received in advance if the student had not availed of service for a considerable balance period. The term that the fee once paid is not refundable is unconscionable and cannot be enforced. A student can certainly leave the course midstream if he finds that the service rendered is deficient and education imparted is sub-standard service and the education being imparted does not lead him anywhere. <br /> <br /> 10. We concur with the reasoning given by the District Consumer Forum and hold that the order passed by it is perfectly legal and balanced in as much as it had ordered refund of fee of one year for which respondent had not availed any service for imparting education in the course from the appellant. No statuary protection is provided to such private institutions to exploit the sentiments of the students and waste their time. Hence, there is no force in the appeal. Consequently, it is dismissed in lilmine with costs of Rs.1,000/-. <br /> <br /> 6. By this judgment it is very clear that the condition in the agreement that fee once paid is not refundable cannot be enforced. Such mindset of the service provider requires to be changed. The unilateral condition will not be binding on the students. Admittedly, in this case 30 hours Airbus training was not given to the complainant within the period of one year course. Therefore, as per the agreement the course was not completed and Diploma Certificate shall not be issued to such students and even if it is issued that Diploma Certificate had no value in the eye of law. No Airlines will accept such certificate or Diploma of the student who had not undertaken 30 hours practical Airbus training. Whatever the training imparted during the course of one year to the present complainant had gone waste, she has not been benefited in any manner. She will not get any job in the Airlines. Therefore, the complainant has been put to mental tension, agony and harassment. The mother of complainant who is a widow had manage to get the money by raising loan and amount was paid to the opposite party with a hope that the complainant may get good job and she may be a support to the family. But in this case, the dreams and good carrier of the complainant had been shattered and half way she has to leave the course on account of the unreasonable delay on the part of opposite party to impart 30 hours practical Airbus training. As per the opposite party even now they are ready to send the complainant for Airbus training to New Delhi as per the agreement. Naturally they have to spend Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- for To and Fro, Boarding, Lodging, Local Transportation etc.,. Because 30 hours Airbus training is part and parcel of the course and no separate fee is chargeable. When this is the position it is better that the opposite party shall refund the fee to the complainant. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent Act, it is intended to protect better interest of the consumer. Complainant herein is definitely a consumer under the definition of the Act, her interest deserves to be protected by ordering the opposite party to refund the fee paid by her. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, it is a fit case to order opposite party institution to refund Rs.92,000/- the fee paid by the complainant. The complainant has prayed Rs.50,000/- towards expenditure and she has also prayed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for mental agony and loss of opportunity to get job and she also requested for grant of interest on the amount. On the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into over all view of the matter, I feel this is not a case to grant interest on the amount paid by the complainant and also the compensation as prayed for by the complainant. The ends of justice will be met in asking the opposite party institution to refund Rs.92,000/- the amount received from the complainant. With this conclusion and finding, I proceed to pass the following: <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 7. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party institution is directed to refund Rs. 92,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order within 30 days the said amount carries interest at 12% pa. from the date of this order till payment / realisation. <br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2008. <br /> <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> Rhr<br />