PRESENT: Sh.Nikhil Sharma, Adv. for the Complainant.

         Sh.Manish Goel, Adv. for OPs.

PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

        Concisely put, enticed by the rosy picture projected by the OPs, the Complainant got himself registered for Headstart ERP Academy for Integrated Business Management Solution Course with assured job assurance by depositing Rs.23,000/- as registration charges on 30.10.2007 and thereafter Rs.13,000/- was paid on 10.12.2007 on account of installment amount for the course. In all, he had paid Rs.87,000/- to the OPs as per the fee structure. It was alleged 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 course consisted of 4 months learning program and 2 months of Industrial Training & as per the agreement executed between the Complainant & OPs, the OPs would offer him a job on successful completion of training program. His contention was that the pace of the course was very slow, against which he made umpteen number of complaints to the OPs, but to no avail. The OPs took four months to complete the class room training, due to which the Complainant even tried to meet the Director/Chairman of the Company, but he was not allowed to meet him. He was thereafter send to Delhi by the OPs at his own expense, however, he was not assigned any work. After wasting his valuable time of 03 months i.e. from March to April without any work while sitting in Delhi, he wrote repeated mails to the OPs, as a result of which he was called back to Chandigarh. They again sent him to Delhi for 15 days and after wasting another 15 days, he was again called back to Chandigarh. By this time, more than 10 months have passed and there was no fruitful result from the side of the OPs. In order to escape their liability, the OPs finally came up with the plea that the attendance of the Complainant in Industrial Training was short and as such, he cannot be assured any job. It was averred that he even cleared the Microsoft Certified Business Management Solution Specialist Designation in Microsoft Dynamics NAV 5.0 C/SIDE Introduction. Alleging that inspite of all efforts and requests, when the OPs did not provide any job to him, despite of the assurances given at the start of the course, a legal notice was served upon the OPs on 19.9.2008, but the same also failed to elicit the desired results. Hence, this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the end, the Complainant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

a)  Rs.87,000/- plus 18% p.a. interest from the date of receipt of amount by the OPs till its payment to the Complainant.

b)  A sum of Rs.1.00 lac which was spent by the Complainant during the course for his lodging and boarding which included the travel expenses and the amount spent on purchasing the laptop.

c)  To pay the wages to the Complainant for the services provided by him at the instance of OPs, to various institutions at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month total amounting Rs.80,000/-.

d)  To pay Rs.5.00 lacs as compensation for harassment, mental agony, loss of precious time including traveling and other expenses from OP No. 1, OP No. 2 and OP No. 3 for which they are liable jointly and severally.

e)  To issue certificate regarding completion of course by Complainant through Headstart. 

f)  To pay the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.11,000/-.

g)  Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum deems fit in the circumstances of the present complaint. 

2]      Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case. 

3]      OPs in their joint written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case/reply, pleaded that no job assurance was ever given by them and they only assist candidate in providing job subject to successful completion of whole course as per contract and 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. The Complainant did not complete his course successfully as such, the OPs were not liable to assist Complainant to get any job. It was denied that he made any complaint regarding slow progress of the course. The course was properly conducted by OPs and there was no problem with the same. The candidates who have successfully completed course as per contract, had been assisted by the OP to get job. The Complainant was never serious in studies and was irregular in attending classes. As such, he did not give Headstart examination, and he has not completed the course successfully and, therefore, OPs were not liable to get any job assistance to him when he had not completed the course as per contract. It was also denied that he tried to meet the Managing Director/Chairman, but was not allowed to meet him. It was admitted that all candidates were sent to Delhi for Industrial Training and Complainant was also sent for the same purpose. He was attached with Tin Tar Retail Corporation for Industrial Training, but he did not complete his Industrial Training successfully. It was denied that he wrote any mails to officials of OPs, as alleged. It was asserted 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 contentions of the Complainant were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]      We have carefully gone through the entire case thoroughly, including the complaint and the relevant documents tendered by the complainant / OPs. We also heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the Complainant and OP No. 1 to 3. As a result of the detailed analysis of the entire case, the following points/issues have clearly emerged and certain conclusions/arrived at, accordingly:-

i]  The basic facts of the case in respect of the Complainant having paid a total sum of Rs.87,000/- to the OPs for undertaking an Integrated Business Management Solution Course, with offer of an assured job, that the said Course consisting of 04 months Learning Programme and 02 months Industrial Training, as per the Agreement executed between the Complainant and the OPs and that the OPs would offer him a job on successful completion of the Training Programme, have all been admitted. The contention of the Complainant is that the pace of the Course was very slow and the OPs took 04 months to complete the Class Room Training and thereafter, he was repeatedly shuttled between Delhi and Chandigarh and thereby, he lost 10 valuable months with no fruitful results insight and finally, in order to escape their liability, the OPs came with the plea that the attendance of the Complainant in Industrial Training was short and as such, he cannot be assured any job. As per the Complainant, he even cleared the Microsoft Certified Business Management Solution Specialist Designation in Microsoft Dynamics NAV 5.0 C/SIDE Introduction. But despite all the efforts and requests, the OPs have failed to provide him a job and, therefore, he wanted to get his money paid to the OPs refunded, along with interest and other compensation.

ii] The averments and pleadings made by the Complainant have been denied by the OPs, saying that no job assurance was ever given by them and they only assist the Candidate in providing job, subject to successful completion of the whole Course, as per the Programme, and that the Candidate had to attend classes, do Industrial Training and clear both the Microsoft and Headstart Examinations, for getting assistance for a job from the OPs. The payment of Rs.87,000/- by the Complainant for the whole Course has been admitted by the OPs. As per the OPs, since the Complainant did not complete his Course successfully, the OPs were not liable to assist the Complainant in getting any job. The contention of the Complainant about the slow progress of the Course has also been denied by the OPs. The allegation of the OPs against the Complainant is that he was never serious in studies and was irregular in attending classes and as such, he did not take the Headstart Examination and, therefore, could not complete the same successfully and as such, the OPs were not liable to give job assistance to him, as he has not completed the Course as per the Contract. It is further stated that the Complainant has not completed his Industrial Training also and had cleared only the Microsoft Examination and not the Headstart Examination. All other allegations of the Complainant have been denied by the OPs. 

iii] From the detailed study and analysis of the entire case, including the documents enclosed by the parties and evidence produced, as well as arguments made, it is quite clear that no doubt the Complainant had entered into an agreement with the OPs, through which he was to be assisted by the OPs for obtaining a job. But the said job offer from the OPs was clearly subject to fulfillment of the following criteria within a period of 7 months from the date of issue of the letter (Annexure C-9) by the OPs i.e. 1/11/2007:-

a] 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.

b] 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.

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

iv]  As per his own admission, the Complainant has only fulfilled one out of three conditions i.e. he 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 him. He has neither completed the Training Programme tilted  “Professional Certificate Programme in Integrated Business Solution Management”, nor has he attended his practical industrial training programme when he was sponsored at Tin Tar Retail Corporation, New Delhi. The OPs have attached an affidavit of Mr. Suresh Kumar of New Delhi, in which he has affirmed that the Complainant came to Industrial Training at Tin Tar Retail Corporation, New Delhi, but did not complete the Industrial Training. The allegation of the Complainant that he was shuffled continuously between Chandigarh and Delhi, but no fruitful results were achieved even after 10 months, is not substantiated by any evidence or proof or document in support of his contention. Therefore, it appears that the Complainant left the Training Programme in between on his own and did not complete the same as per requirements of the OPs. On the same lines, as per Condition No. 3 at (c) of Annexure C-9 (Pg.17), the Complainant was required to take an examination to be conducted by the OP as Headstart Certificated Business Associate or Consultant Examination, even this examination was not taken by the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant on his own had omitted to fulfill the two major conditions, as set up by the OPs and duly accepted by him, which were pre-requisites to the job offer and compensation to be given by the OPs. The OPs have also attached affidavits of some of the fellow students namely – Ms. Komalpreet Kaur, Mr. Sunil Kumar, Mr. Jaspal Singh, Mr. Dev Raj Sharma and Mr. Pardeep Singh Banga, who have categorically stated in their affidavits that they had done ERP Course from the OPs and that the Complainant used to remain absent and was irregular in attending classes. In addition, all these candidates have stated that after successfully completing the Course, the OPs provided them with jobs. However, there is one e-mail dated 19.2.2008, in the filed, said to have been sent by Ms. Babli Bedi, Career Consultant of OP (Headstart Process Consulting Pvt. Ltd.) to the Complainant, in which the attendance of the Complainant has been shown to be 82%. There is no affidavit to support the contention of the Complainant in respect of his attendance. Moreover, the same Ms. Babli Bedi has submitted an affidavit dated 14.1.2009, in which she has affirmed on oath that she has not received any e-mail from the Complainant and that the Complainant has made a concocted story of making complaint in Para No. 6 of the complaint.  She further says that Mr. Himanshu Kaushal – the Complainant had never made any complaint regarding slow progress of the course and that the said course was being properly managed by the OPs. Even ignoring the e-mail, as produced by the Complainant and the affidavit given by Ms. Babli Bedi for a moment, there is no other document on record as such to show that the Complainant ever wrote any letter to the OPs in respect of the slow progress of the course or in respect of any other complaint against the OPs. Therefore, the allegations of the Complainant in this respect are patently false and cannot be accepted at their face value.  

v]   During the course of arguments, an offer had been made on 18.12.2009 by the OPs to provide lectures for the course of Professional Certificate Programme in Integrated Business Solution Management afresh without charging any amount from the Complainant i.e. totally free of cost and that the Complainant shall take the examination for Headstart Business Associate or Consultant. In case, the Complainant passes that examination successfully, the OPs shall issue him  a Certificate. It was further stated by the OPs that the Complainant shall complete the “On the Project Education Training” at his own expense, but the OPs shall sponsor his name for the said Training and at the end of this procedure, the OPs agreed to issue certificate as “Headstart Certified Business Associate or Consultant” to the Complainant and would also give him a job. All this was initially agreed upon by the learned counsel of the Complainant, but later on, at the final stage, the settlement was not arrived at and thereafter, the case was shifted to the mainstream. All this itself shows that the Complainant’s intentions are not bonafide. It appears that he is just not interested in either completing the class room course or undergo an “On the Project Education Training” or appear in any Examination being conducted by the OPs, but still he wants the OPs to issue him the Headstart Business Associate or Consultant Certificate and also offer him a job, which is neither justified, nor fair, nor he is entitled to get a job in the absence of completing all the formalities, as agreed upon between him and the OPs.     

6]      Keeping in view the above detailed study of the case, it is quite clear that the Complainant has not been able to establish any deficiency of service or indulgence in any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  On the contrary, it is also clear that the Complainant himself is at fault, as he is just not interested in continuing with the academic part of the course or undergoing any practical industrial training on the job or even appearing in any examination being conducted by the OPs. Therefore, his claim for the refund of the amount paid by him to the OPs is just unfair, unreasonable, without logic and hence, not tenable. If at all, the Complainant has suffered any loss, in terms of money or time or both, it is only because of him and not because of OPs. In view of this, it is our considered view that the present complaint has no weight, merit or substance and it cannot succeed. We, therefore, dismiss the complaint. However, the parties shall bear their own costs. 

7]     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file