MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.         This is an appeal filed by the complainant against order dated 18.1.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 1219 of 2008.

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case are that in the month of August, 2007 complainant received a call from the respondents whereby they give very bright picture about the future prospects of the candidate who had done their course. They also assured that in case the complainant will do their course he would be assured the job by the respondents. By this assurance, on 30.10.2007 the complainant paid registration charges of Rs.23,000/- to the respondent and thereafter Rs.13,000/- was also paid on 10.12.2007 on account of installment amount for the course of Integrated Business Solution Management.  In all, the complainant had paid Rs.87,000/- to the OPs as per the fee structure. It was alleged by the complainant that though he joined the course in the month of October, yet he was made to join the batch which was commenced w.e.f. September. The said course consisted of 4 months learning program and 2 months of Industrial Training. As per agreement between the complainant and OPs, the OPs would offer him a job on successful completion of training program. The contention of the complainant was that the speed of the course was very slow, against which he made numerous complaints to the OPs but to no avail. The OPs took four months to complete the class room training and thereafter the complainant was sent to Delhi at his own expense, however, he was not assigned any work nor was provided any assistance to get any work/training in any company.  After wasting three months i.e. from March to April without any work while sitting in Delhi, the complainant wrote repeated mails to the OPs. As a result of the above said mails, the complainant was called back to Chandigarh. They again asked the complainant to go to Delhi for 15 days, however still there was no positive result from their side. After wasting another 15 days in Delhi, he was called back to Chandigarh. It was submitted by the complainant that more than 10 months have passed and there was no fruitful result from the side of OPs. Then the OPs finally came up with the plea that attendance of complainant in Industrial Training was short and due to which he cannot be assured any job. It was averred that the complainant even cleared the Microsoft Certified Business Management Solution Specialist Designation in Microsoft Dynamics NAV 5.0 C/SIDE Introduction. When the OPs did not provide any job, a legal notice was served upon the OPs on 19.9.2008 vide registered AD but till date nothing has come from the side of OPs. This act of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.       Reply was filed by OPs and pleaded that no job assurance was ever given by them to the complainant and they only assist candidate in providing job, subject to successful completion of whole course as per contract. Every candidate had to attend classes, industrial training and clear both Microsoft and Headstart exams for getting assistance from OPs. The payment of Rs.87,000/- by complainant for the whole course was admitted. It was further pleaded that the complainant did not complete his course successfully and due to which the OPs were not liable to assist complainant to get any job. It was denied that the complainant made any complaint regarding slow progress of the course. It was pleaded that the candidates who have completed course as per contract, had been assisted by the OP to get job but the complainant was never serious in studies and was irregular in attending classes, due to which the complainant did not give Headstart examination and he had not completed the course successfully. Therefore,  the OPs were not liable to get any job assistance to him when he had not completed the course as per contract. It was admitted that all candidates were sent to Delhi for Industrial Training and complainant was also sent for the same purpose and he was attached with Tin Tar Retail Corporation for Industrial Training but he did not complete his Industrial Training successfully. It was denied by OPs that the complainant wrote any mails to officials of OPs. It was further pleaded that the complainant had only cleared Microsoft Examination but he was also required to clear Headstart Examination which was not done by him. All other material allegations leveled by the complainant in the complaint were controverted and pleaded that there was no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

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

5.    The learned District Forum dismissed the complaint as complainant was not able to establish any deficiency of service or indulgence in any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  The learned District Forum in the impugned order submits that the complainant was at fault, as he was just not interested in continuing with the academic part of the course or undergoing any practical industrial training on the job or even appeared in any examination being conducted by the OPs.

6.       Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Forum, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant. Sh.Vishal Gupta, Advocate has appeared on behalf of appellant and Sh.Munish Goel, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondents.

7.    In appeal, the learned District Forum has failed to appreciate the facts of the case and apply the law and has proceeded to pass an erroneous order, which is not sustainable in law. The learned District Forum has totally failed to appreciate that the complainant has spent lacs of rupees on the course and also fulfilled all the conditions necessary mentioned in the agreement dated 30.10.2007. The learned District Forum has further ignored the fact that the respondents have taken the money and on the completion of the said course they are now escaping their liability. The learned District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant has successfully cleared all the mandatory exams as mentioned in “clause 1” of the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is further submitted that vide letter dated 26.8.2008 a certificate was also issued by Microsoft which is annexed herewith as Annexure A-5 and as per the letter, the complainant was declared as Microsoft certified Management Solution Specialist. The learned District Forum has further ignored the fact that respondents assured the complainant that if he will do their course he would be given assured job by the respondents. The respondents had also given an advertisement in newspaper in which they had assured job placement to be given to the candidates who join their course. Hence, it is prayed that appeal may kindly be accepted and order passed by the learned District Forum may kindly be set aside.

8.    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9.    It has been observed by us that in this case the complainant is at fault by not fulfilling of the following criteria within a period of 7 months from the date of issue of the letter dated 1.11.2007 (Annexure C-9).

“i) Successful completion of the training programme titled “Professional Certificate Programme in Integrated Business Solution Management” with both class room and on-job project execution training.

ii] Acquiring minimum certification level of “Microsoft Certified Business Management Solution Specialist” in any one of the pre- designated certification exam within six months from the date of this letter.

                     iii]       Issue  of   Certificate   by                                                       Headstart as “Headstart Certified                                    Business Associate or Consultant”

       From the perusal of the Annexure C-9, it is evident that the complainant has only fulfilled one out of these conditions i.e. the complainant has acquired minimum certification level of “Microsoft Certified Business Management Solution Specialist” in any one of the pre-designated certification exam within six months from the date of the said letter. The remaining two conditions as at (a) and (c) in the foregoing have not been fulfilled by the complainant. The complainant had neither completed the training program titled “Professional Certificate Program in Integrated Business Solution Management” nor he has attended any practical Industrial Training Program. Even as per condition No. 3 at (c) of Annexure C-9, the complainant was required to take an examination to be conducted by the OP as Head Start Certified Business Association Consultant Examination. The complainant had failed to fulfill this condition also by not taking this exam.

10.       Therefore, from the above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP. It is due to the fault of complainant, who himself committed mistake by not fulfilling the two major conditions which were pre-requisite for the offer of job by the OPs.

11.   In this view of the matter, we are in consonance with the view taken by the learned District Forum. The order passed by the learned District Forum is just, fair and reasonable, so no interference is called for. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed  being devoid of any merit and uphold the order passed by the learned District Forum. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

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

Pronounced.

23^rd August, 2010.