In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 182 / 2009.
1) Shri Pulak Majumdar,
14/1A Baxi Bagan Lane, Mukherjee Para Road,
PO & PS. Barasat, Kolkata – 700124 ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Indian Institute of Hardware Technologies Ltd. (IIHT)
Chowringhee Mansion,
30 Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata-16 and having its
Head office at 54, Sri Lakshmi Complex, 4th floor,
St. Marks Road, Bangalore -560001.
2) CISCO Systems Inc.,
Apeejay Business Centre, 8th floor, Block-A,
Apeejay House, 15, Park Street,
P.S. Park Street, Kolkata-16. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 31 Dated 28/09/2012.
The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant Shri Pulak Majumdar against the o.ps. Indian Institute of Hardware Technologies Ltd. (IIHT) and CISCO Systems Inc. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant is a senior technologist in the CISCO networking domain and o.p. no.1 is a training institute offering training in various courses design by CISCO and has been designated by CISCO and CISCO Learning Solutions Partners commonly known as CLSP authorized by CISCO for offering technical / solutions training and such designation has authorized o.p. no.1 to be closely aligned with CISCO product teams and business units, have access to CISCO intellectual property and to be uniquely qualified to create customize and deliver market leading training using CISCO certified instructors. O.p. no.1 being a CLSP is authorized to advertise such partnership and offer courses certified by CISCO against revenue to be collected from the intending students for such courses and shared with CISCO and such entitlement came with the obligation which are laid down by CISCO.
Further case of the complainant is that a print of home-page of the website of o.p. no.1, advertising and claiming to be a CLSP of o.p. no.2 and also claiming and advertising to impart various CISCO certified courses in accordance to the guidelines of CISCO.
Further case of the complainant is that o.p. no.2 for certain monetary consideration, has authorized o.p. no.1 to offer technical, product and/or solution training courses which have been officially certified by o.p. no.2. However, all such courses in respect of course flow, course material etc. are completely designed by o.p. no.2.
Further case of the complainant is that complainant with a view to enhance his professional qualifications and with a view to garner better professional prospect, decided to acquire a further degree offered by CISCO namely ‘Cisco Certified Voiced Professional (CCVP)”.
Further case of the complainant is that in the month of June-July 2008, complainant came across an advertisement published by o.p. no.1 wherein o.p. no.1 claiming to be a CLSP, offered training in the course being ‘CISCO Certified Voice Professional (CCVP)”.
Further case of the complainant is that complainant upon coming across such advertisement and upon coming to know that o.p. no.1 was CLSP, became interested in pursuing such course and accordingly complainant sent an e-mail to the responsible official of o.p. no.1 in Kolkata expressing his interest to join such course, but also seeking certain technical information about the courses. Such e-mail was also duly replied to by the official of o.p. no.1 and being under the impression that o.p. no.1 duly adhered to all the CISCO guidelines of the CCVP course, complainant decided to join the said course.
Further case of the complainant is that complainant was specially informed bay the official of o.p. no.1 that the course which was for a duration of 280 hours would commence by 1.8.08 and in the event complainant opted for the said course, he would have to pay the full course fees immediately. Complainant, feeling a bright prospect of the said course of CCVP, somehow collected the entire amount of Rs.1,10,113/- towards the full course fees for the CCVP course and paid the same to o.p. no.1.
Further case of the complainant is that complainant had opted for the course of CCVP with a view to enhance his professional prospect and since the said course h as designed by CISCO as a full day course over a period of about 40 days, complainant being very serious about successful completion of the course, resigned from the job which was he engaged in at such point of time with the sole view of dedicating his entire attention and effort towards the said CCVP course.
Further case of the complainant is that upon receipt of the entire fees from complainant on 25.7.08 o.p. no.1 promised that the course would commence by 1.8.08. But on 28.7.08 complainant was informed for the first time that date of commencement of the course had been postponed due to some unforeseen reasons. However, it was also told to complainant by the officials of o.p. no.1 that they would despatch the course material to complainant at an earlier date so as to enable him to go through and familiarize himself with the same and in spite of such assurance as above, neither the course materials is given to complainant and nor was the complainant informed of any definitive date when the course would actually start and course material did not reach complainant uptill 5.9.08.
Further case of the complainant is that o.p. no.1 had already taken the entire course fees from complainant on 25.7.08 with the assurance that the course would positively start by 1.8.08. O.p. no.1 was actually never in a position to start such course since it did not even have the requisite trainers to conduct such course. It was specifically mentioned in such e-mail “CCVP is the high-end course and trainers’ interview is in progress and will take a while to conclude”. This is extremely shocking in view of the fact that the CISCO guidelines for trainers for a course like CCVP specifically lays down that such trainer needs to be a full time staff or contractor who is exclusive to the CLSP. In view of such specific guidelines, it was in-comprehensible that o.p. no.1 had declared a specific course commencement date and had taken the entire course fees from complainant without even having th e requisite trainers to conduct the course.
Further case of the complainant is that having received such e-mail dtg.5.9.08 complainant fell into a huge despair and even contemplated suicide which is reflected from the e-mail sent by complainant on 6.9.08 in reply to the above mentioned e-mail dt.5.90.08 and having received such above mentioned e-mail from complainant the said Mr. Tirumale immediately sent a reply to complainant on 6.9.08 trying to calm down complainant. It was confirmed by the self same e-mail that the course have been ‘rescheduled’ at Bangalore by the first week of October 2008. It was further stated in the said e-mail that o.p. no.1 had till such date not been able to send the course material because the same could not be down loaded and printed from the website of o.p. no.2 because of some technical problem in the said website.
Further case of the complainant is that on receipt of the e-mail dt.6.9.08 complainant tried to obtain confirmation about the date of commencement of the course at Bangalore and when no confirmation was given to complainant he was forced to write another e-mail on 17.9.08 to the said Mr. Narendra Tirumale, wherein complainant again expressed his utter frustration and despair under the situation and also sought for a specific date when the course would start and the course ware would be given to complainant. However, in spite of delivery and receipt of the said e-mail stated hereinabove, no confirmation was given to complainant and on 8.10.08 complainant again wrote to the said Mr. Tirumale seeking for a confirmed date where upon the said Mr. Tirumale sent an e-mail dt.9.10.08 to complainant and complainant was shocked to learn from the said e-mail that the course was again being rescheduled and was now being planned to be conducted in Mumbai. Complainant, even though shocked by such attitude, could not much about the situation as he was already unemployed by such time and had invested all his money in the course and by an e-mail dt.10.10.08, he again requested for a specific date for commencement of the course at Mumbai as he would have to purchase the rail ticket to Mumbai and make plans for his accommodation there. In reply to such above mentioned e-mail, the said Tirumale sent an e-mail to complainant on 11.10.08 wherein it was stated that the CCVP batch would start from 3.11.08 at the Goregaon centre Mumbai and the trainer would be Mr. Jagdish Madhavan and after much persuasion, o.ps. finally managed to send the course-ware to complainant by courier. But even at the time of delivery of the said course-ware on 29.9.08.
Further case of the complainant is that on 14.10.08 complainant again wrote an e-mail to Mr. N. Tirumale asking for a confirmation of the dates and also seeking help for arrangement of accommodation near the training centre so that complainant did not have to lose a single moment in his study of the CCVP course. In reply to such e-mail, the said Mr. Tirumale, by e-mail dt.15.10.08, again reiterated that the commencement date for the CCVP course at Goregaon centre was3.11.08 and accordingly, in order to confirm his participation in the course, complainant, in view of the travel-rush during the puja vacation, purchased railway tickets to travel to Mumbai on 31.10.08. However, on 24.10.08 complainant was informed by one Mr. Harshad Sangley, an officer of o.p. no.1 that the course has now been postponed to 10.11.08 and accordingly, having no other above, complainant had to cancel his ticket for 3l.10.08 and had to purchase fresh rail ticket for traveling to Mumbai on 6.10.08, thereby losing substantial money towards cancellation charges etc.
Further case of the complainant is that complainant by his e-mail dt.25.10.08 informed the said Mr. Harsha Sangley and Mr. Tirumale that as per the changed schedule of course he would be traveling to Mumbai by train on 6.11.08 and arrive there on 8.11.08 and as such he requested the said persons for help in arrangement of accommodation near the training centre. But on 3.11.08 he received another e-mail from the said Sri Harshad Sangley, whereby complainant was again shocked to learn that the course had again been postponed and would now start from 17.11.08 at the Andheri Centre of o.p. no.1.
Further case of the complainant is that complainant received the above mentioned air ticket, complainant also received an official letter from o.p. no.1, welcoming him to the CCVP course and laying down in no uncertain terms that the CCVP course opted and paid for by complainant would commence on 17.11.08 and conclude on 26.12.08. Upon reaching Mumbai on 16.11.08, complainant put up at a rented accommodation and went to the Andheri centre of o.p. no.1 where the CCVP course was to be conducted and upon being formally introduced to the course coordinator, complainant and his other course-mates were given an overview of the said course and the intended training-pattern as designed by o.p. no.2. From the course-ware, it was abundantly clear that the entire course had been designed by o.p. no.2 for being conducted on a certain pattern which constituted of a pre-lunch theoretical session and a post-lunch practical (lab) session.
Further case of the complainant is that complainant upon commencement of the classes, was shocked to observe that the said course was not being conducted in accordance with the specific guidelines set up by o.p. no.2 for such course and there were no lab facilities which are an absolutely essential part of the CISCO designed course flow. Accordingly, on 20.11.08 complainant sent an e-mail to the said Mr. Tirumale stating therein, the deficiencies in the way the course was being conducted, specially the fact that there were no lab facilities. Upon receipt of such e-mail the said Mr. Tirumale and the other officials of o.p. no.1 assured complainant that all deficiencies were only of a temporary nature and would be plugged at the earliest so that the entire CCVP course comprising of six papers would be conducted successfully within its schedule. Being convinced by such assurance, complainant decided to carry on with the course.
Further case of the complainant is that on 25.11.08 complainant and his other course mates were shockingly informed by o.p. no.1 that only five out of six papers constituting the CCVP course would be conducted by o.p. no.1. Accordingly, complainant, wrote an e-mail to the Centre-Head of the Kolkata office of o.p. no., where complainant had deposited the entire course fees, for a pro-rated refund in respect of the paper which was not being taught / conducted by o.p. no.1. And o.p. no.1 in absence of the requisite facilities, the course could not be completed within the target date i.e. 26.12.08 and such fact can be more so established from an e-mail dt.27.12.08.
Further case of the complainant is that o.p./ no.1 failed to provide the requisite lab infrastructure and other facilities mandated by CISCO for the CCVP course and the course could not be completed by the targeted date thereby forcing the complainant and his other course mates to stay back at Mumbai at their own cost and expenses and attend the course which was being conducted by o.p. no.1 in most irresponsible manner.
Further case of the complainant is that classes were again suspended by o.p. no.1 from the mid of January 2009 forcing the complainant to write an e-mail dt.21.1.09 to Mr. Narendra Tirumale stating therein, the complete failure of o.p. no.1 in completing the course even after taking the entire course fees and also the fact that o.ps. by their illegal and arbitrary acts had wasted six months of the complainant’s life and ruined his career. By the self same e-mail, complainant also soughtg for refund of the entire course fees, which had been paid by him as advanced to o.p. no.,1 on 25.7.08. And course was supposedly delayed by a period of only 10 days and the said Mr. Tirumale also accepted that fact that there were certain ‘gaps’ in terms of the lab infrastructure.
Having received no positive response from the said Mr. Narendra Tirumale on the issue and the classes having been completely suspended, the complainant found himself in a frustratingly helpless situation where his time, money and career had all been wasted and ruined and complainant continuously sent e-mails to the said Mr. Narendra Tirumale, Mr. Madhav (COO-IIHT) and Mr. Keshav (CEO-IIHT), wherein he stated the entire scenario which he stated the entire scenario which had led to such mental trauma and financial difficulties being imposed upon the complainant and also sought for refund of his course fees and expenses incurred by him in connection with such course together with compensation for the mental trauma as well as financial and professional ruin suffered by complainant, but all such appeals failed to evoke any positive response or concern from o.p. no.1. and complainant was forced to return to Kolkata on 1.2.09, upon being asked to do so by o.p. nop.1 on 29.1.09. Hence the case was filed by complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
Both o.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and evidence. O.p. no.1 denied all the material allegations labeled against it and prayed for dismissal of the case. O.p. no.1 in its w/v has stated that the allegations against o.p. no.1 in the petition of complaint vide para 2 is fabricated one and o.p. no.1 gave advertisement in the newspaper for providing training in CISCO Certified Voice Professional (CCVP) and further stated that the training was provided by competent trainer and the allegation of complainant is not true and o.p. no.1 was ever keen the conduct in accordance with the course contents in the instant petition of complaint is a concocted and no deficiency of service was caused on the part of o.p. no.1 and prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons:-
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. From the annexure attached with the petition of complaint as well as annexure annexed with the supplementary evidence filed by complainant on 16.8.12 clearly go to show that o.p. no.1 did not have proper infrastructure, lab facilities and competent instructor as per guidelines of o.p. no.2 and inordinate delay for sending course papers and deferring dates for conducting the said CCVP course and schedule various venues caused much hardship and mental agony to the complainant even the course was not completed and course was stopped in June 2009 by o.p. no.1 and o.p. no.1 requested complainant to go back to Kolkata and to collect amount as refund deposited by complainant in favour of o.p. no.1. I is also reflected from the record that the qualifications of the instructors was not upto CCSI of the instructor and as per provisions laid down by o.p. no.2 instructor is required to be a full time employee, but record shows that both Mr. V. Rapulu and Mr. V. Prasad the instructors engaged for the course were not having the requisite qualifications as per guidelines of o.p. no.2. It is surprising to note that course was scheduled to start in the month of August 2008 but o.p. no.1 failed to start such course and went on changing venue from Kolkata to Bangalore and then to Mumbai postponing various dates of such course. It is also seen from the record that complainant was employed prior to taking admission in the said course and for such admission in the said course complainant had to leave his previous service. Further it is quite clear that o.p. no.1had sufficient deficiencies as they did not have requisite infrastructure to undertake such course and the course was being conducted incontravention of the guidelines of o.p. no.2 and o.p. no.1 did not complete the course for the reason best known to them and such deliberate act and deficiency in service caused huge loss of income of the complainant since the complainant had left his job after admission in CCVP course advertised and offered by o.p. no.1.
In view of the above position we find that o.p. no.1 had sufficient deficiencies being a service provider to its consumer / complainant and carrying on unfair trade practice as defined in Sec 2(1)(r) in the C.P. Act, 1986 and the action on the part of o.p. no.1 has ruined the career of the complainant and such act in our society is highly condemnable and there must be an end of it and this cannot go any step further and we firmly hold that this is a social crime and such unfair trade practice should be nipped in the bud since it affects the career of the young youths of this country. Accordingly we hold that o.p. no.1 had sufficient deficiencies to its consumer / complainant and carrying on unfair trade practice and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest against o.p. no.1 with cost and against o.p. no.2 without cost. O.p. no.1 is directed to pay to the complainant the course fees of Rs.1,10,113/- (Rupees one lakh ten thousand one hundred thirteen) only together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of realization and is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand) only for the harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.7000/- (Rupees seven thousand) only and is further directed to pay punitive damage of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) only to the complainant and is further directed to pay Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs) to Consumer Welfare Fund towards punitive damage for carrying on unfair trade practice as defined in the C.P. Act, 1986. O.p. no.1 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid order within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
