Present         (1)     Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                         President

                    (2)     Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

Date of Order :  31.03.2016

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To direct the opposite parties to refund the entire education fee along with 24% interest per annum from the date of deposit till date of refund.
2. To pay Rs. 4,00,000/- ( Rs. Four Lakh only ) as compensation.
3. To pay Rs. 15,000/- ( Rs. Fifteen Thousand only ) as litigation costs.

2. The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-

It is the case of the complainant that he had taken admission for diploma course in HCL certified engineer for the session 2009-10 and deposited total fee of Rs. 46,000/- vide annexure – 1 series. As per terms and condition of the Institution his course was not completed within time schedule and thereafter the Institution had issued a provisional certificate to the complainant in which it is mentioned that “ this is to certify that Vijay Kumar, S/o Yogendra Mehta having registration no. 597RG0902004 has successfully completed the course module CCNA MCCE except server security and RHSE under HCE ( HCL certified development center at Patna.” The aforesaid certificate was issued on 24.06.2011.

It is the case of the complainant that till now his course has not been completed and due to non completion of his course he is suffering loss of placement or could not take admission in higher education which has resulted in serious mental and physical harassment.

It is also the case of the complainant that he has tried to take steps regarding the completion of his course but the Institution has failed to do so.

On behalf of opposite party no. 1 and 3 a written statement has been filed denying the aforesaid allegation of the complainant. In Para – 3 of the aforesaid written statement the following facts have been asserted “ that CDC centre provided most of classes to the complainant but later on the student himself disappeared from some classes and even after the request of the centre he did not attend his classes. One day dated 24.06.2011 the complainant visited the CDC centre with an application and requested us as under “ Most humble I beg to say that I am student of HCE7 batch. I am going to join in Wipro Company on first of July, 2011. I have done the courses in A+,N+ and MCSE classes are running on your letter head for join in Wipro Company. Therefore I request you to kindly grant me a certified letter on HCL letterhead ”. He further mentioned in his application that “ Because of my regular absence from classes my course has not yet completed ” it is very clear from the above noted facts that the complainant himself did not completed his classes/course and further insisted our CDC centre to issue certificate against the completed courses, hence there is no deficiency in service or no unfair trade practice on part of the answering respondents ( copy of application by student/complainant is annexed herewith ).

Photocopy of the aforesaid application of the complainant has been annexed with the counter affidavit as annexure – 1 ( i.e. on page – 6 ).

In nut cell the opposite party no. 1 to 3 have stated that the complainant himself disappeared from classes and even after request of the centre he did not attended his few classes.

On behalf of the complainant a supplementary affidavit has been filed in which it is stated that in the student code of conduct of the Institution it is clearly written that in absence from classes for 3 days or more the same is to be discussed with the concerned faculty well in advance and the reason is to be given in writing and the permission is to be obtained from centre manager.

It is surprising that no reply has been given by the complainant either by filing rejoinder or even in supplementary affidavit to fact asserted by opposite party no. 1 and 3 in Para - 2 of its counter affidavit referred above.

In this case opposite party no. 2 has not appeared despite service of notice in admission stage.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. We have also mentioned the relevant facts of this case briefly in the foregoing paragraphs.

It is the case of the complainant that as the Institution did not complete its course in time and up till now hence the fee etc. deposited in the Institution be returned with interest as well as with compensation for mental harassment and loss of future.

The opposite party no. 1 and 3 have annexed the photocopy of the application of the complainant dated 24.06.2011 from perusal of which it appears that complainant himself requested to issue certificate as he was to go for joining in Wipro Company on 1^st July 2011. In this application he had admitted that he was regular absent in the classes and due to this his course could not be completed.

We have already stated that the aforesaid fact has not been denied by the complainant and hence it is crystal clear that the complainant has suppressed the aforesaid fact in his complaint petition.

In view of the fact stated above we find and hold that there is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties and as such this case stands dismissed but without cost.

                                        Member                                                                   President