Delhi

StateCommission

CC/12/313

KRISHNA KUMAR JHA & ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAGSON AIRLINES LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

11 Aug 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments: 11.08.2015

Date of Decision: 02.12.2015

Complaint No.313/12

 

In the matter of:

1. Krishna Kumar Jha,

S/o Sh. Yugal Kishore Khan,

C/o Geeta Chaudhary,

R/o A-348, Durga Vihar,

East of Sainik Firms,

Khanpur, New Delhi-110062.

 

2. Rahul Pandita,

S/o Sh. Yoginder Nath,

R/o 12B, Bhawani Nagar,

Janipur, Jammu, J&K-180007.

 

3. Ms. Naini Kasyap,

D/o Sh. Arvind Kasyap,

R/o – 406, Awas Vikas, Roorkee,

•  

 

4. Amol Rachit Goel,

S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta,

R/o 48-B, Gurubax Vihar, Daksh Road,

Kankhal, Haridwar, Uttrakhand.

 

5. Amit Kumar Singh,

S/o Sh. Akhilesh Kumar,

R/o Village Madhanpur,

P/o Siwaipati, Dist.-Muzaffarpur,

1.  

 

6. Ravi Kumar Singh,

S/o Sh. B.N. Singh,

R/o Barbatta, Railway Colony,

Q.No.T/128, (C+D)

Road No.3, Sonpur,

Saran, Bihar-841101.

 

7. Rajiv Kumar,

S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh,

R/o Village Gunana,

P/o Mehmal, P.S.-Nissing,

Distt. Karnal,

Haryana-132024.                           ….............Complainants

 

Versus

1. M/s. Jagson Airlines Ltd.,

Through Jagdish Prasad Gupta (Chairman),

•  

11, Tolstoy Marg,

New Delhi-110001.

 

2. M/s. Jagson Airlines Ltd.,

Registered Office- SDA Complex, Kasumpti,

Simla, Himachal Pradesh-171009.                    …....Opp. Parties

                                                                

CORAM

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

S C Jain, Member

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

          

 N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

 

1. The present complaint is filed jointly by seven persons named  Krishna Kumar Jha, Rahul Pandita, Ms. Naini Kasyap, Amol Rachit Goel, Amit Kumar Singh, Ravi Kumar Singh  and Rajiv Kumar.  The case of the complainants is directed against M/s. Jagson Airlines Ltd. having its registered office at SDA Complex, Kasumpti, Simla, Himachal Pradesh-171009 and its Chairman at 3^rd Floor, Vandana Building, 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110001(hereinafter referred to as the OP).

 

2. The facts of the complaint in brief are that abovesaid complainants are qualified engineers who were deployed as “Trainee AME” on AVRO RJ85 aircraft. They were required to undergo training for Aircraft maintenance.  Training included theory classes and Practical/OJT training on live aircraft.  OP is doing the business of operation and maintenance of its airlines besides doing the business of oil drilling. OP gave assurance to the complainants during the training period that they would be paid a salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month. After completion of the training period as AME on AVRO RJ85 and after endorsement and approval of DGCA,  salary would be given @ Rs.20,000/- per month. The salary would thereafter go upto Rs.80,000/- per month.  The OP however put a condition on the complainants that they have to pay to the OP an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as cost of training. OP also informed them that it was waiting for arrival of the aircraft.  The module of aircraft was displayed on the notice board   of the OP.

 

3. Contention of the complainants is that the OP put a condition in the letter of appointment that service of complainants could be terminated at any point of time by giving one month’s of notice period or payment of one month’s salary in lieu thereof. Condition of implementation/training was signed between them and the OP on or around 01.11.2010. It was also stipulated in the letter that the complainants would be full time employees and would not accept any assignment elsewhere.  The grievance of the complainants is that the OP duped them of the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- each.  Complainants had just graduated in Aircraft Maintenance Engineering  and they had to take a loan for making the payment of Rs.3,00,000/- to the OP. Office of the Dy. Director of Civil Aviation Northern Region forwarded a proposal for conducting ”B1 & B2” training by M/s. Flybe, UK (an EASA 147 approved training institute) on BAe AVRO RD85 Aircraft. The permission was granted with the condition that practical training would be given on a live aircraft. The examination would be conducted in association with DGCA.  The relevant letter is placed on record as Annexure C-3.

 

4. Next contention of the complainants is that the OP only as a cosmetic measure started training classes in October and November, 2010 but in the absence of live aircraft.  On objection by the trainees, OP informed that its aircraft had not arrived.

 

5. Complainants also pointed out that the basic infrastructure and the necessary gadgets were missing at the time of imparting of training. Laptop was missing and the projector was working upside down. The instructor was totally disgusted with the infrastructure and the facilities provided by the OP. Notes were not available. The laptop with the course presentation was awaiting delivery.  On 28^th October, 2010, course material arrived. Instructor’s copy was missing.  The same was traced on the next day. Instructor informed the Director of engineering that facilities were not up to the mark in terms of EASA 147 requirements. Projector was not having its stand. It was propped on two tables. No desks were available in the classroom. The echo was observed in case of any trainee speaking in the classroom. Lighting was poor.  There was no facility to copy the study material.  There was strictness in the use of paper.  OP grossly violated the guidelines of Civil Aviation set by DGCA. In December, 2010, OP started mismanaging the training schedule.  On enquiry raised by the complainants, OP informed that due steps were being taken for procurement of the specified aircraft. Email dated 16.12.2010 was sent to the concerned department stating that the specified aircraft was ready to be delivered and they mailed the photographs of the very aircraft which was to arrive in Delhi. No aircraft reached the training centre or Delhi. This went on till April, 2011. The complainants kept coming to the venue of the OP but on 07.05.2012 they were informed that their services were terminated w.e.f.31.03.2011, on the basis of condition No.6 of the agreement. Contention of the complainants is that they were never asked to stop reporting from 31.03.2011 or thereafter till 07.05.2012. OP took a plea that it informed the complainants not to report for duty from 31.03.2011. OP neither imparted the requisite training nor refunded the money taken from them. Complainants further submitted that the OP did not pay any salary to Ravi Kumar Singh for the months of April, May and June, 2011 and also did not give intimation dated 07.05.2011 in respect of termination of services. The complainants were left high and dry to fend for themselves.

 

6. Complainants came to know vide DGCA letter dated 11.05.2011 whereby DGCA informed the OP that in the absence of practical training, the training was considered incomplete.  The complainants thereafter sent legal notice to the OP and a copy of the same was sent to Director DGCA.  The DGCA took cognizance of the matter through its letter dated 11.07.2011 and asked the OP to take necessary action and redress the grievance of complainants. Reminder dated 28.02.2011 was also sent to the OP.

 

7. On the basis of abovesaid averments, the complainants claimed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, and also claimed Rs.15000/- for filing of legal notice  and Rs.10,000/- towards reminder and litigation charges of Rs. 1,00,000/-.  Interest @ 18% compounded annually has also been claimed. Salary of the complainant Ravi Kumar Singh for the month of April, May and June, 2011 and for the rest of complainants for the month of May and June, 2011 alongwith interest @18% per annum is also to be claimed.

 

8. In its written version, OP admitted that the complainants applied to it for working as trainee aircraft maintenance engineers. OP stated that as per mandate of DGCA and in terms of Aircraft Rules, 1937 the engineers have to undergo mandatory practical training before being granted license by DGCA in this behalf. Aircraft Maintenance Engineer can operate an aircraft only after undergoing the said training successfully.  OP submitted that the complainants were appointed as “Trainee AME-AVRO RJ85” vide appointment letter issued to them. The contention of the OP is that it had arranged to impart the complainants training through M/s. Flybe U.K. The amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was received from each of the complainants towards expenditure on training. OP relied upon the letter dated 11.05.2011 issued to it by the DGCA.  The same is exhibited as Ex.OP/2.  OP admitted having paid the salary of Rs.10,000/- per month to the complainants. The training was also held in the premises of CCAT-Dwarka, Delhi, an institute approved by DGCA. The OP stated that training was completed by M/s. Flybe U.K.on 03.12.2010.  There was no live aircraft. OP submitted that it had placed an order with the manufacturer but the aircraft was not delivered. OP submitted that it was contemplating legal action against the said manufacturer.

 

9. OP contended that it intimated all the complainants on 31.03.2011 that their services were no more required. One month’s salary in lieu of notice was tendered to the complainants who received the same.  Last objection raised by the OP is that there existed no relationship of service provider and consumer between them and the complainants.

 

10. It is the admitted case of OP that it failed to provide training to the complainants on a live aircraft.  There is no dispute with the proposition that in the absence of live aircraft, the training remained incomplete. In other words, the DGCA would not recognize the theoretical training only imparted by the OP to the complainants. The complainants thus never became competent to act as aircraft maintenance engineers. The period spent by the complainants on theory classes with the OP has thus gone waste. Complainants spent time and money for attending such classes. Payment of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to each complainant is also admitted. It is not the case of the OP that complainants did not pay the requisite fee.  OP was thus ‘deficient in service’.

 

11. Coming to the objection of OP that the complainants were its employees, it may be mentioned here that the contract between the parties related only to the completion of training on payment of requisite fee.  It is not the case of OP that the complainants were subscribing to provident fund, ESI or medical like other employees of the OP.  Obviously the relationship between them was of a service provider and consumer. The complainants are not only given incomplete training but their career has been put in jeopardy as instead of pursuing their career they have been fighting this litigation since 2011.

 

12. Before parting it may be mentioned here that the OP terminated the services of the complainants w.e.f. 31.03.2010. No letter was issued by OP to the complainants either in the month of March or April, 2010. OP has simply issued letter dated 07.05.2011 whereby he referred to some information allegedly given to the complainants on 31.03.2011.  No evidence has been placed on record in support of the contention that any information was given to the complainants on 31.03.2011.  Only on 07.05.2011, the OP asked the complainants to collect one month’s salary from their finance department. It was at that time, that the complainants were asked to collect the said money and handover all the belongings to the (HR) Manager of OP.  No such exercise was ever done by the OP prior to 07.05.2011.  The contention of the OP that it terminated the services of complainants on 31.03.2011 is only an afterthought.

 

13. In view of the discussion above, we are of the considered opinion that the OP has not only been ‘deficient in service’ but it also indulged in ‘unfair trade practice’. OP collected amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from each of the complainants and failed to provide practical training on live aircraft. We, therefore, direct the OP to pay to the complainants as under :-

 

 

1. to refund an amount of Rs.21,00,000/- (3 lacsX7) received from the complainants alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of its realisation.

 

2. to pay to the complainants a compensation to the tune of Rs,50,000/- each (Rs.50,000/- X 7 =3,50,000) for harassment, inconvenience and mental agony caused to the complainants.

 

3. to pay to the complainants litigation charges to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- each (Rs.1,00,000/- X 7 = Rs.7,00,000/-).

 

4. to pay salary of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant Sh. Ravi Kumar Singh for the months of April, May and June, 2011 and to the remaining complainants for the months of May and June, 2011 alongwith interest @18% per annum from June, 2011 uptil the date of its realisation.

(N P Kaushik)

                                                                                              Member (Judicial)                                                   

                                                                                                           (S C Jain)          Member

j