O R D E R

By Smt.Sreeja.S , Member :

          Complainant No.1 got admission in the opposite party institution for 6 months  MCSD course.  The course was conducted online and she attended the same from Abudabi.  The fees were remitted by 2^nd complainant.  An amount of Rs.75,000/- were remitted in 5 instalments dated 21/6/14, 28/6/14, 11/7/14, 1/8/14 and 8/8/14 respectively.  The course started on 26/6/14, but the opposite party did not complete the course till date.  No class were provided for 3 papers out of total six.  Act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and so  the complainant caused a lawyer notice dated 16/10/15 which yielded no result.  Hence this complaint filed.

          Version of the opposite party is as follows: Complaint is not maintainable.  MCSD course is 3 different types.  MCSD Windows store apps using C#, MCSD Web applications and MCSD share point.  All three different types MCSD having 3 course/papers each.  Each MCSD is a 6 months course.  It is not stated on which MCSD course the complainant has joined.  Out of the 3 papers/course in MCSD web applications, first two papers/course were completed in the month of October 2014.  The 1^st paper having 14 modules and 2^nd paper is having 16 modules.  After completion of these two papers before commencing the last paper in MCSD web applications, on the persistent demand of the complainant that she wants to take Programming in C# which is useful for her job instead of last paper ‘developing windows Azure and web services’.  Programming C# is a 1^st paper in MCSD windows store Aps which is different course and the complainant and our institute agreed to take the paper in the same course fee even the payment of the MCSD Windows store Apps course fee is higher than MCSD web Applications.   Programming in C# course was taken on the persistent request of the complainant and for a student we spent 3 hours a day with a qualified faculty for 6 months period for online training.  Subsequent to the  completion of the Programming C#  paper complainant  approached for the last paper in MCSD web applications and further papers in MCSD web applications.  But it is cleared that separate course fee has to be paid for further class but on the pregnancy related  issues the complainant discontinued further.  There is no deficiency of service.  The complainant did not made any additional payment for  the further training and not turned for the last long period and after thought the complaint has filed on malafide intention and prayed for a dismissal.

          Points for consideration are :

1)Is there any  deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

2)Reliefs and costs

          Complainant filed proof affidavit and produced 3 documents, which are marked as Exts.P1 to P3. Ext.P1 series – cash receipts(5 Nos.), Ext.P2 copy of lawyer notice dtd.16/10/15, Ext.P3 A/D card.  From the side of opposite party 4 documents produced and marked as Exts.R1 to R4. Ext.R1 copy of course modules, Ext.R2 MCSD  fees structure, Ext.R3 Rely Notice dtd.23/11/15, Ext.R4 A/D card.

          Points: The case of the 1^st complainant is that she joined  MCSD course.  The same is admitted by the opposite party.  But they contends that  separate courses were conducted under MCSD and complainant failed to specify the course  she attended.  It is true that the complainant has no such a definite case.  Ext.P1 series also not shows the course attended by the complainant.  But Ext.R1 state different modules.  Hence it is clear that complainant failed to prove specific course she attended.

          The crux of the dispute is with regard to the course papers.   Complainant says that no classes were provided to 3 papers out of 6  included in the course.  Nothing is stated in the complaint or no evidence has been adduced regarding the papers included in the course.  The complainant has also no case regarding the name of papers included in the course and the papers left out.  On the other hand the opposite party produced Ext.R2 stating the number of papers each course has.  First course and 2^nd  course  having altogether 3 papers each and 3^rd course having altogether 4 papers.  Since no contra evidence produced, we are of the opinion that Ext.R2 proves the course and its papers and same defeat the case of the complainant as well.

          Considering the evidence as a whole and also from the above discussion we find that the complainant failed to establish a tenable case before this Commission.  Consequently we  dismiss the complaint.

          In the result complaint dismissed without cost.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission  this the  30^th   day  of   November 2021.

Sd/-                                                             Sd/-

Sreeja.S                                                       C.T.Sabu                       

Member                                                       President                            

                                      Appendix

Complainants Exhibits

Ext.P1 series – cash receipts(5 Nos.), Ext.P2 copy of lawyer notice dtd.16/10/15, Ext.P3 A/D card 

Opposite Party’s Exhibits

Ext.R1 copy of course modules, Ext.R2 MCSD  fees structure, Ext.R3 Rely Notice dtd.23/11/15, Ext.R4 A/D card                                        

                                                                                      Id/-

                                                                                      Member