Himachal Pradesh

Una

240/2009(Bls)

Abhishek Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Institute Of Computer Accountants Center - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. B.S.Sandhu

23 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM UNA
DISTRICT UNA (HP).
 
Complaint Case No. 240/2009(Bls)
 
1. Abhishek Sharma
S/o SH. Ashwani Kumar SHarma ,r/o H. NO.2 Type Singal Story Changer Sector Bilaspur (HP)-1740001
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Institute Of Computer Accountants Center
at Bilaspur,87B first Floor, Near PNB, Main Market Bilaspur (HP) through its Director Sanjeev Chandel
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. B.R. Chandel PRESIDENT
 
For the Complainant:
Sh.D.S.Sandhu,Adv for the comp.
 
For the Opp. Party: Sh. Parvesh Chandel, Advocate
ORDER

O R D E R( Per Shri B.R. Chandel, President).

 

                    The opposite party is the franchise of the  ‘Institute of Computer Accountants’ House No. 27, NS Road, Kolkata  and running its Institute of Computer Accountants Centre at Bilaspur. Attracted by the offer made  by the opposite party through advertisement notice Annexure C-II and Annexure C-IV  guarantee job placement  of Industrial Accountant after undergoing 15 months diploma course in certified industrial accounts at its institutions affiliated to the institute of computer Accountants, House No. 27, NS Road, Kolkata, the complainant took admission in the said course on 01-10-2007 by depositing the total fee amounting to Rupees 23,000/- vide receipt Annexure C-23.  The complainant completed the said course and was issued professional certificate Annexure C-4 to him.

2.     In view of the above stated undisputed facts the complainant on the strength of this complaint has claimed that the opposite parties be directed to refund Rupees 23,000/- along with interest  and cost of the complaint on the grounds that after completion of the course in the month of January 2009 the complainant requested the opposite parties  to issue detailed Mark Sheet (DMC) and diploma of the course, but the opposite party  failed to issue the same on one or the other pretext, upon which the complainant  threatened the opposite party to file the complaint upon which the opposite party issued the DMC and diploma after a delay of 7 months and failed  to offer any job for 10 months till the filing of the present complaint in spite of assurance given at the time of admission which amounts to deficiency in service.

3.     The opposite party disputed the said claim and has set up the defense that the opposite party provided the job to the complainant in his own institution and paid him handsome  salary and for better job, the opposite party further   organized the interview  of the complainant at Chandigarh in which the complainant got selected for the job , but he did not join that job hence it is not the responsibility of the opposite party to provide the job every time to the complainant and as such the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and the complaint has been filed by him just to harass the opposite party and he does not fall within the definition of the consumer and as such the opposite party has committed no deficiency in service.

4.     There is no dispute that the complainant completed his course in the month of January 2009. In support of its defense the opposite party has produced in evidence the abstract of attendance register  Annexure D-4, according to which he was appointed as a teacher in the institute of opposite parties since the month of December 2008 till the month of December 2009. The complainant has not disputed the authenticity and genuineness of the contents of the abstract of the attendance register of the teachers Annexure D-4, which has been duly signed by him. The complainant has also  not disputed the defense set up by the opposite party that he was being paid handsome salary during the said period. The complainant himself has set up  the case that his diploma and detailed Mark Sheet  has been issued late by 7 months. The certificate Annexure C-5 is dated 2nd July, 2009, and the same has been issued by the institute of Computer Accountants, Kolkata. Since the diploma had to be issued from the said institute , it took some time for its issuance, but in view of the fact that the complainant had been provided job of a teacher by the opposite party since the month of December 2008 and he remained in the said job till the month of September 2008, the delay in issuance of the said certificate becomes insignificant and the said fact cannot be considered as deficiency in service.

5.     The opposite party has produced in evidence job offer letter issued by ‘DORIC Multi Media’ dated February 2, 2010, Annexure D-5, vide which DORIC Multi Media had appointed the complainant has  ‘Tally Operator’ to maintain accounts in CMO office at Kasumpati (Shimla) and NRHM office and he was advised to report   the above mentioned location on or before 2nd February, 2010. The factum of said offer for job placement made at the instance of the opposite party to the complainant is not disputed. The complainant cannot show as to why he did not opt to join the said placement  offered to him, as a result of which this Forum is bund to infer that he was not interested to get the job as offered at the instance of the opposite party, hence he cannot be heard to say that no job was offered to him.

6.     The opposite party has placed on record the complaint dated 13-07-2010 preferred to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, by opposite party No.1 against the complainant disclosing therein that he was threatening the opposite party and hurling abuses, telephonically. The said complaint was made by the opposite party when the complainant was already in job of the opposite party. The matter was compromised between the parties to the complaint vide compromise dated 07-09-2010 Annexure     D-7. The said job  placement offer was made by DOREC Multi Media to the complainant at the instance of the opposite party after the said compromise, but the complainant did not join the job , hence no fault can be found with the opposite party.

7.     Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the opposite party was legally bound to give him job placement  at places and institutions as mentioned  in document Annexure C-6, but the said contention is without substance, because no such claim has been made in the complaint.

8.     In view of the evidence discussed and findings recorded above, this Forum is bound to conclude that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, hence the complaint is bound to fail.

RELIEF:

        In view of the findings recorded above, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. Let certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost, as per rules. The file, complete in all respects, be consigned to the Records.

ANNOUNCED & SIGNED IN  THE OPEN FORUM;

Today this the 23rd day of  January, 2015.

 

                                           ( B.R. Chandel)

President

 

 

 

                                                                             (Manorma Chauhan)                     (Pawan Kumar) 

                                                                                         Member                                     Member    

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. B.R. Chandel]
PRESIDENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.