K.V.Chandra Mohan V/S Pramod - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

171/2002

Pramod - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.V.Chandra Mohan - Opp.Party(s)

Rajeev

15 Jul 2008

ORDER

Thiruvananthapuram
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Vazhuthacaud
consumer case(CC) No. 171/2002

Pramod						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
K.V.Chandra Mohan President Samson G.Netto Syamasree technologies						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

1. Smt. Beena Kumari. A 2. Smt. S.K.Sreela 3. Sri G. Sivaprasad

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

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.

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT : SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P.No. 171/2002 Filed on 20..04..2002 Dated: 15..07..2008 Complainant: Pramod. M., Preethy Bhavan, Karupooru P.O., Nedumangad, Thiruvananthapuram 695 541. (By Adv. Rajeev. S.S) Opposite parties: 1. K.V. Chandramohan, 17/1154, Sastha Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram 695 006. (By Adv. Smt. R. Sathi) 2. Samson. G.Netto, Sam Cottage, Eravipuram, Kollam 691 011. Addl. Opposite parties: 3. Syamasree Technologies, opposite Town LPS., Main Road, Nedumangadu 695 541. 4. Society for Entrepreneurs Development, GF-13, Amrithanjali Stadium Complex, Kollam 691 001. (By Adv. Shri. T.R.Dilraj) This O.P having been heard on 30..06..2008, the Forum on 15..07..2008 delivered the following: ORDER SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT: The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant had made enquiries with 1st opposte party in respect of a course consequent to an advertisement in Malayala Manorama Daily dated 23..11..2000 and 1st opposite party had informed the complainant that the course was operated by the Society of Entrepreneurs Development (SED), Kollam and that the said course was conducted at Creative Logix, Bangalore and that Syamasree Technologies was an approved centre of SED. The basic course for one month would be conducted at Syamasree Technologies and on completion of the above said course, the complainant was assured placement by 1st opposite party. Complainant remitted Rs. 30,000/- and joined the said course and classes started on 03..01..2001 and after one month the complainant was directed to join at Bangalore and had undergone the course for 4 months in a computer centre there. After completion of the said course complainant did not get any placement and that complainant was cheated by 1st & 2nd opposite party and hence this complaint claiming compensation of Rupees One lakh for mental and physical agony suffered by the complainant. 2. 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties. The 1st opposite party was employed for a short time as Manager of GAD of M/s. Syamasree Technologies, Nedumangad had nothing to do with the running of the institution and formulation of the policies of the institution. 1st opposite party was neither the owner nor the proprietor of the institution as averred. The statement that the 1st opposite party sold the institution to somebody else is also false. 1st opposite party is not personally responsible for any of the acts done by him for M/s. Syamasree Technologies. Syamasree Technologies, Nedumangad was an institution providing computer related services and software training. They made a tie-up with M/s. Society of Entrepreneurs Development, Kollam to conduct the courses formulated and certified by SED on terms and conditions mutually agreed upon and such institutions were to be known as SED Centres, Syamasree Technologies was thus a SED Centre at Nedumangad. SED claimed to have tie-up with more than 1500 placement agencies to provide general placement support to the students undergoing various courses of SED on individual application. Apart from this general offer by November 2000, SED came out with a special offer of Live E-Commerce Training with Ensured Placement to students who adhere to certain standards. The pre-requisite was passing an Aptitude Test and subsequent interview conducted by SED. On clearing the Aptitude Test and interview, SED further insisted 90% attendance in the course and successful execution of a project assigned at the end of the live training. The live training and placements were also to be arranged by SED. The SED centres were just to arrange a local test centre and conduct the foundation modules for two months at the local institute and hand over the students to SED. Syamasree Technologies opted to co-operate and SED posted the advertisement in the newspapers. The test was held on 02..12..2000 at Darsana E.M. High School, Nedumangad by the officials of SED and after valuation they finalized a list of six candidates, who cleared the Aptitude Test for an interview along with parents on 08..12..2000 at Syamasree Technologies, Nedumangad. Individual letters to this effect was sent to each successful candidate for this purpose. During the interview, it was made clear that the conduct of the course was entirely the responsibility of SED and that Syamasree Technologies and M/s. Creative Logix, Bangalore are only their associates in the conduct of the course. To each candidate who cleared the Aptitude Test and interview, SED offered to give an undertaking in Rs. 50/- stamp paper, to the effect that he will be offered a placement on condition that he secures 90% attendance in the course and successfully completes an assignment given through M/s.Creative Logix, Bangalore. Some of the candidates were not amenable to the conditions and Syamasree Technologies decided not to conduct the course if all the candidates selected do not join the course as it would not financially viable. The number of seats earlier allotted was 12 and if at least half the strength was not there break even was not considered possible. All the candidates were not prepared to join and the course was finally dropped by Syamasree Technologies. The complainant was not a candidate for the Aptitude Test conducted by SED on 02..12..2000 and as such was not eligible to be considered for the placement ensured training. The averment that on seeing the advertisement he contacted the 1st opposite party and he was made to believe certain things by this opposite party all are false. The condition for eligibility was there in the advertisement itself and all that Syamasree Technologies did was to give free registration and to convey the information that the primary thing was to clear the test. The advertisement did not require the candidates to contact the 1st opposite party personally. By the middle of February 2001, the father of the complainant approached Syamasree Technologies enquiring whether his son could be admitted to the E-Commerce training of SED. He was intimated that the process of selection is all over and that the proposed training idea is dropped. He wanted to have his son's case taken up with SED and Syamasree Technologies took the matter up making it unequivocally clear that it is not prepared to impart initial training to a single individual candidate. SED required the bio-data of the candidate. Some days later SED informed that M/s. Creative Logix is on the look out for trainees and that the training can be arranged in full at Bangalore as the party is willing to take it without the placement offer and Syamasree Technologies was requested to receive the fees on behalf of SED. The complainant remitted the sum on 22..02..2001 and the receipt was issued to him. The 1st opposite party is in no way liable for any claim warranting payment of compensation. The SED at their sole responsibility made all the offers for the conduct of course and employment. Hence 1st opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. 2nd & 3rd opposite parties filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is not a consumer. It was true that SED was operating the course in association with Creative Logix, Bangalore. The 1st opposite party was instructed by the 2nd opposite party to give advertisement in newspapers. A few students contacted with Syamasree Technology, Kollam which is run by the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party did an entrance test and personal interview to all the students who contacted there. The complainant was never interviewed by the 2nd opposite party. The complainant had intruded the course through the back door. The complainant was not at all an able person for the course named E-Commerce conducted by Creative Logix, Bangalore. SED has never worked or acted as a man power placement agency. The complainant was given a letter by the 2nd opposite party for the training course which was done by Creative Logix, Bangalore. Complainant had already got all the classes of the course. He has already completed the course and the certificates were also issued by the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party has conveyed the matter to the 2nd opposite party and 2nd opposite party told the 1st opposite party that the complainant may be given any placement if it is possible. Since the complainant was after for a placement, the 2nd opposite party recommended him with certain companies named Penta Circle, Kollam, Fings Technology, Kottayam etc.. The said companies issued letters to the complainant asking him to appear before the company for placement. But the complainant has never turned up. Since the complainant has failed to appear for the interview the complainant could not be given placement. There is no deficiency in service. Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. The points that would arise for consideration are: (i)Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? (ii)Reliefs and Costs? 5. To support the contention in the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1 in lieu of examination in chief and marked as Exts. P1 to P5. 1st opposite party has filed an affidavit of himself as DW1 and marked Exts D1 to D4. 2nd opposite party has filed an affidavit for himself and on behalf of 4th opposite party and marked Exts. D5 to D7. 6. Points (i) and (ii) : Initially, the complaint was filed against the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. Subsequently additional 3rd and 4th opposite parties were impleaded. It has been the case of the complainant that the complainant came across an advertisement in the Malayala Manorama Daily dated 23rd November 2000 issued by 1st and 2nd opposite parties and contacted the 1st opposite party who was running 'Syamasree Technologies' at Nedumangad. It was informed by the 1st opposite party that the course duration was four months and the course was being operated by a Society called the Society of Entrepreneurs Development instituted at Kollam and the course was going to be operated at 15 centres in Kerala and 'Syamasree Technologies' was selected as the course centre at Thiruvananthapuram. It has also been the case of the complainant that complainant was informed by the 1st opposite party that the course would be operated by the Creative Logix, a Software Development Centre at Bangalore. The basic course for one month would be conducted at 'Syamasree Technologies', on completion of the course, complainant was assured placement. Complainant has never mentioned the name of the course in the complaint. Ext.P1 is the above said advertisement. A perusal of Ext.P1 would reveal that an advertisement inviting applications for 'Live E-Commerce Training with Ensured Placement' was issued by the Society of Entrepreneurs Development, Kollam in association with Syamasree Technologies, SED Centre, Nedumangad. Ext.P1 would state that selection through Aptitude Test at Darsana EM High School, Nedumangad on 02..12..2000 at 10 A.M. It would further disclose that duration 5 months (700 hours)-2 months (200 hours) at Nedumangad and 3 months (500 hours) at Bangalore in Live Projects, training in association with M/s. Creative Logix, International Professional Portal Makers, extensive study materials, placement guaranteed on successful completion etc... Ext.P2 is the copy of the receipt dated 22..02..2001 for Rs.30,000/- from the complainant towards fee for Live E-Commerce Training of SED issued by Syamasree Technologies. Ext.P3 is the copy of certificate of training issued by Society of Entrepreneurship Development in favour of complainant. Ext.P3 would reveal that complainant has undergone a course training in Live E-Commerce conducted by Bhaskar College and Creative Logix at Kollam and Bangalore from the 4th day of December 2000 to 12th day of July 2001. On going through Exts. P1 to P3 it is apparent that complainant was a candidate for Live E-Commerce training and he obtained the certificate for the same. Now the grievance of the complainant is that on completion of the said course, though complainant was assured placement by the opposite parties, which was not provided by the opposite parties as agreed as per Ext.P1. The submission by the complainant is that complainant had successfully completed the said course offered by the opposite parties by virtue of Ext.P3, consequent to which opposite parties were duty bound to ensure placement from the complainant as per Ext.P1 advertisement. It has been asserted by the 1st opposite party that the said course was designed by the 2nd and addl. 4th opposite parties. In the affidavit by way of evidence filed by 2nd opposite party and it is admitted that 1st opposite party was instructed by the 2nd opposite party to give advertisement in newspapers that student would be admitted to this course only after an entrance test and an interview to be done by the 2nd opposite party. In his version, 1st opposite party pleaded that the pre-requisite for the said course was passing the Aptitude Test and subsequent interview conducted by SED. On clearing the Aptitude Test and interview, SED further insisted 90% attendance in the course and successful execution of a project assigned at the end of the live training. It is contended by opposite parties, that as per Ext.P1 the Aptitude Test was held on 02..12..2000 at Darsana EM High School at Nedumangad by the officials of SED and after valuation they finalised a list of six candidates who cleared the Aptitude Test for an interview along with parents on 08..12..2000 at Syamasree Technologies. Individual letters to this effect was sent to each successful candidate for this purpose. During the interview it was made clear that the conduct of course was entirely the responsibility of SED and Syamasree Technologies and M/s. Creative Logix, Bangalore are only their associates in the conduct of the course. To each candidate, who cleared the Aptitude Test and interview, SED offered to give an undertaking in Rs.50/- stamp paper to the effect that he will be offered a placement on condition that he secures 90% attendance in the course and successfully completes an assignment given through M/s. Creative Logix, Bangalore. Some of the candidates were not amenable to the conditions and Syamasree Technologies decided not to conduct the course if all the candidates selected do not join the course as it would not financially viable. The number of seats allotted was 12 and if at least half the strength was not there, break even was not considered possible. All the candidates were not prepared to join and the course was finally dropped by Syamasree Technologies. The submission by the 1st opposite party is that the complainant did not take Aptitude Test and interview and was not eligible for admission to the course in a proper way. The course was also dropped. It has been contended by the 1st opposite party that by middle of February 2001, the father of the complainant approached Syamasree Technologies enquiring whether his son could be admitted to the E-Commerce training of SED. The father of the complainant was intimated that the selection process is all over and that the proposed training idea is dropped. But the father of the complainant wanted to have his son's case taken up with SED. SED required the bio-data of the candidate with address and phone numbers, and that was arranged. Some days later SED informed that M/s. Creative Logix is on the look out for trainees and that the training can be arranged in full at Bangalore as the party is willing to take it without the placement offer. As the local SED Centre, Syamasree Technologies was requested to receive the fee on behalf of SED. The complainant remitted the sum on 22..02..2001 (Ext. P2). SED was informed of the remittance and immediately the transportation of the candidate to Bangalore was arranged by SED. The complainant is seen to have started training at Bangalore on 05..03..2001. The submission by 2nd and 4th opposite party is that the complainant was never interviewed by the 2nd opposite party. Students who appeared for entrance test were issued admission letter and call letter to the interview. No material on record to show that complainant had appeared for the entrance test and interview conducted by 2nd opposite party. As per Ext.P1, selection was through Aptitude Test at Darsana EM High School, Nedumangad on 02..12..2000 at 10 A.M. It is not clear from the complaint when did the complainant apply for Live E-Commerce Training. It is pertinent to note that as per Ext.P1, Live E-Commerce Training with ensured placement was by selection through Aptitude Test at Darsana EM High School. Opposite party already submitted that Aptitude Test was conducted on 02..12..2000 as per Ext.P1 but complainant was not a candidate for the Aptitude Test. Complainant has no case that he had appeared for the said test. Further Ext.P2 receipt would disclose that the complainant had remitted Rs.30,000/- towards fee for Live E-Commerce training of SED. As per Ext.P3 SED certificate of Training, the course of training in Live E-Commerce was conducted by the Bhaskar College and M/s. Creative Logix at Kollam and Bangalore. Nowhere in Ext.P3, the name of Syamasree Technologies is seen mentioned. Ext.P4 is the introductory letter given by 2nd opposite party directing the complainant to approach one Third Wave HRD Consultants at Doraiswamy Road at Ernakulam for placement. The submission by the complainant is that complainant had approached the said Third Wave HRD Consultants as per the direction of 2nd opposite party. When approached the 'Third Wave HRD Consultants' complainant was informed by them that they were only a placement agency who would secure placements for those who register with them. Ext.P5 is the letter issued by Syamasree Technologies to the complainant wherein the complainant was called upon to remit the required fee and take admission to the Live E-Commerce Training on or before 23..12..2000. As per Ext.P2, complainant is seen remitted an amount of Rs.30,000/- on 22..02..2001. Ext.D1 is the photocopy of experience certificate dated 15..09..2001 issued to the complainant by M/s. Creative Logix, Bangalore. Ext.D2 is the copy of receipt dated 18..10..2001 of Ext.D1. Ext.D3 is the photocopy of the recommendation letter dated 18..10..2001 given by 2nd opposite party to the complainant. Ext.D3 and D4 are one and the same. Ext.D4 is the copy of letter dated 18..10..2001 addressed to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party. Exts. D1 to D4 are seen marked on the part of 1st opposite party. Exts. D5 to D7 are seen marked on the part of 2nd and 4th opposite parties. Ext. D5 is the letter dated 08..11..2001 addressed to 2nd opposite party by Penta Circle Informatics. Ext.D5 was with regard to the appointment of programmers in response to the reference list and covering letter issued by 2nd opposite party. As per Ext. D5, complainant and another candidates Arun B.S. failed to appear for a written test and Aptitude Test conducted by Penta Circle Informatics. Ext.D6 is the letter dated 04..12..2001 addressed to 2nd opposite party by Fings Technologies, Changanassery informing him that complainant and another candidate recommended by 2nd opposite party did not turn up for interview. Ext.D7 is the letter issued by INTEL Institute of Information Technology addressed to 2nd opposite party informing that complainant and another candidates recommended by 2nd opposite party did not turn up for the interview. In cross examination, complainant admitted that he did not appear for interview. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that complainant had never pleaded deficiency in service in conducting the said course nor had he alleged in the complaint that the training given by opposite parties were insufficient, improper and deficient. Further, complainant himself admitted that he has completed the above said course conducted by opposite parties. As regard the said course and its completion there is no pleading in the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. A perusal of Exts. D3 to D7 would disclose the fact that opposite parties have attempted to ensure placement to the complainant at different firms, on various occasions but due to the non-co-operation of the complainant, opposite parties could not afford placement. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that complainant has not succeeded to establish deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Deficiency in service is not proved. Complaint has no merit at all which deserves to be dismissed. In the result complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15h day of July, 2008. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER S.K. SREELA : MEMBER ad. O.P.No.171/2002 APPENDIX I. Complaiant's witness: PW1 : Pramod II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Photocopy of an advertisement in the Malayala Manorama Daily posted by the opposite party. P2 : Photocopy of receipt No.78 dated 22..02..2001 for Rs. 30,000/-. P3 : Photocopy of certificate of training from the Society of Entrepreneurs Development dated 20th Nov-2001. P4 : Photocopy of letter dated 18th Oct. 2001 from 2nd opp. Party. P5 : Photocopy of letter No.SST/Admn/10/2000 dated 18..12..2000 issued to the complainant. III. Opposite parties' witness: NIL IV. Opposite parties' documents: D1 : Photocopy of certificate dated 15 Sept. 2001 from Creative Logix, Software Development and Training. D2 : Photocopy of receipt of experience certificate dated 18..10..2001. D3 : Photocopy of letter dated 18..10..2001. D4 : Photocopy of letter dated 18..10..2001 for direction for interview. D5 : Original letter dated 08..11..2001 issued to the 2nd opposite party from the addl. 4th opp. Party. D6 : Original lette with Reg.No.FNG/HR/EOT/0102/1116 dated 04..12..2001 issued to the 2nd opposite party. D7 : Original letter dated 20..10..2001 issued to the 2nd opposite party. PRESIDENT. ad.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT : SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P.No. 171/2002 Filed on 20..04..2002 Dated: 15..07..2008 Complainant: Pramod. M., Preethy Bhavan, Karupooru P.O., Nedumangad, Thiruvananthapuram 695 541. (By Adv. Rajeev. S.S) Opposite parties: 1. K.V. Chandramohan, 17/1154, Sastha Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram 695 006. (By Adv. Smt. R. Sathi) 2. Samson. G.Netto, Sam Cottage, Eravipuram, Kollam 691 011. Addl. Opposite parties: 3. Syamasree Technologies, opposite Town LPS., Main Road, Nedumangadu 695 541. 4. Society for Entrepreneurs Development, GF-13, Amrithanjali Stadium Complex, Kollam 691 001. (By Adv. Shri. T.R.Dilraj) This O.P having been heard on 30..06..2008, the Forum on 15..07..2008 delivered the following: ORDER SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT: The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant had made enquiries with 1st opposte party in respect of a course consequent to an advertisement in Malayala Manorama Daily dated 23..11..2000 and 1st opposite party had informed the complainant that the course was operated by the Society of Entrepreneurs Development (SED), Kollam and that the said course was conducted at Creative Logix, Bangalore and that Syamasree Technologies was an approved centre of SED. The basic course for one month would be conducted at Syamasree Technologies and on completion of the above said course, the complainant was assured placement by 1st opposite party. Complainant remitted Rs. 30,000/- and joined the said course and classes started on 03..01..2001 and after one month the complainant was directed to join at Bangalore and had undergone the course for 4 months in a computer centre there. After completion of the said course complainant did not get any placement and that complainant was cheated by 1st & 2nd opposite party and hence this complaint claiming compensation of Rupees One lakh for mental and physical agony suffered by the complainant. 2. 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties. The 1st opposite party was employed for a short time as Manager of GAD of M/s. Syamasree Technologies, Nedumangad had nothing to do with the running of the institution and formulation of the policies of the institution. 1st opposite party was neither the owner nor the proprietor of the institution as averred. The statement that the 1st opposite party sold the institution to somebody else is also false. 1st opposite party is not personally responsible for any of the acts done by him for M/s. Syamasree Technologies. Syamasree Technologies, Nedumangad was an institution providing computer related services and software training. They made a tie-up with M/s. Society of Entrepreneurs Development, Kollam to conduct the courses formulated and certified by SED on terms and conditions mutually agreed upon and such institutions were to be known as SED Centres, Syamasree Technologies was thus a SED Centre at Nedumangad. SED claimed to have tie-up with more than 1500 placement agencies to provide general placement support to the students undergoing various courses of SED on individual application. Apart from this general offer by November 2000, SED came out with a special offer of Live E-Commerce Training with Ensured Placement to students who adhere to certain standards. The pre-requisite was passing an Aptitude Test and subsequent interview conducted by SED. On clearing the Aptitude Test and interview, SED further insisted 90% attendance in the course and successful execution of a project assigned at the end of the live training. The live training and placements were also to be arranged by SED. The SED centres were just to arrange a local test centre and conduct the foundation modules for two months at the local institute and hand over the students to SED. Syamasree Technologies opted to co-operate and SED posted the advertisement in the newspapers. The test was held on 02..12..2000 at Darsana E.M. High School, Nedumangad by the officials of SED and after valuation they finalized a list of six candidates, who cleared the Aptitude Test for an interview along with parents on 08..12..2000 at Syamasree Technologies, Nedumangad. Individual letters to this effect was sent to each successful candidate for this purpose. During the interview, it was made clear that the conduct of the course was entirely the responsibility of SED and that Syamasree Technologies and M/s. Creative Logix, Bangalore are only their associates in the conduct of the course. To each candidate who cleared the Aptitude Test and interview, SED offered to give an undertaking in Rs. 50/- stamp paper, to the effect that he will be offered a placement on condition that he secures 90% attendance in the course and successfully completes an assignment given through M/s.Creative Logix, Bangalore. Some of the candidates were not amenable to the conditions and Syamasree Technologies decided not to conduct the course if all the candidates selected do not join the course as it would not financially viable. The number of seats earlier allotted was 12 and if at least half the strength was not there break even was not considered possible. All the candidates were not prepared to join and the course was finally dropped by Syamasree Technologies. The complainant was not a candidate for the Aptitude Test conducted by SED on 02..12..2000 and as such was not eligible to be considered for the placement ensured training. The averment that on seeing the advertisement he contacted the 1st opposite party and he was made to believe certain things by this opposite party all are false. The condition for eligibility was there in the advertisement itself and all that Syamasree Technologies did was to give free registration and to convey the information that the primary thing was to clear the test. The advertisement did not require the candidates to contact the 1st opposite party personally. By the middle of February 2001, the father of the complainant approached Syamasree Technologies enquiring whether his son could be admitted to the E-Commerce training of SED. He was intimated that the process of selection is all over and that the proposed training idea is dropped. He wanted to have his son's case taken up with SED and Syamasree Technologies took the matter up making it unequivocally clear that it is not prepared to impart initial training to a single individual candidate. SED required the bio-data of the candidate. Some days later SED informed that M/s. Creative Logix is on the look out for trainees and that the training can be arranged in full at Bangalore as the party is willing to take it without the placement offer and Syamasree Technologies was requested to receive the fees on behalf of SED. The complainant remitted the sum on 22..02..2001 and the receipt was issued to him. The 1st opposite party is in no way liable for any claim warranting payment of compensation. The SED at their sole responsibility made all the offers for the conduct of course and employment. Hence 1st opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. 2nd & 3rd opposite parties filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is not a consumer. It was true that SED was operating the course in association with Creative Logix, Bangalore. The 1st opposite party was instructed by the 2nd opposite party to give advertisement in newspapers. A few students contacted with Syamasree Technology, Kollam which is run by the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party did an entrance test and personal interview to all the students who contacted there. The complainant was never interviewed by the 2nd opposite party. The complainant had intruded the course through the back door. The complainant was not at all an able person for the course named E-Commerce conducted by Creative Logix, Bangalore. SED has never worked or acted as a man power placement agency. The complainant was given a letter by the 2nd opposite party for the training course which was done by Creative Logix, Bangalore. Complainant had already got all the classes of the course. He has already completed the course and the certificates were also issued by the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party has conveyed the matter to the 2nd opposite party and 2nd opposite party told the 1st opposite party that the complainant may be given any placement if it is possible. Since the complainant was after for a placement, the 2nd opposite party recommended him with certain companies named Penta Circle, Kollam, Fings Technology, Kottayam etc.. The said companies issued letters to the complainant asking him to appear before the company for placement. But the complainant has never turned up. Since the complainant has failed to appear for the interview the complainant could not be given placement. There is no deficiency in service. Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. The points that would arise for consideration are: (i)Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? (ii)Reliefs and Costs? 5. To support the contention in the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1 in lieu of examination in chief and marked as Exts. P1 to P5. 1st opposite party has filed an affidavit of himself as DW1 and marked Exts D1 to D4. 2nd opposite party has filed an affidavit for himself and on behalf of 4th opposite party and marked Exts. D5 to D7. 6. Points (i) and (ii) : Initially, the complaint was filed against the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. Subsequently additional 3rd and 4th opposite parties were impleaded. It has been the case of the complainant that the complainant came across an advertisement in the Malayala Manorama Daily dated 23rd November 2000 issued by 1st and 2nd opposite parties and contacted the 1st opposite party who was running 'Syamasree Technologies' at Nedumangad. It was informed by the 1st opposite party that the course duration was four months and the course was being operated by a Society called the Society of Entrepreneurs Development instituted at Kollam and the course was going to be operated at 15 centres in Kerala and 'Syamasree Technologies' was selected as the course centre at Thiruvananthapuram. It has also been the case of the complainant that complainant was informed by the 1st opposite party that the course would be operated by the Creative Logix, a Software Development Centre at Bangalore. The basic course for one month would be conducted at 'Syamasree Technologies', on completion of the course, complainant was assured placement. Complainant has never mentioned the name of the course in the complaint. Ext.P1 is the above said advertisement. A perusal of Ext.P1 would reveal that an advertisement inviting applications for 'Live E-Commerce Training with Ensured Placement' was issued by the Society of Entrepreneurs Development, Kollam in association with Syamasree Technologies, SED Centre, Nedumangad. Ext.P1 would state that selection through Aptitude Test at Darsana EM High School, Nedumangad on 02..12..2000 at 10 A.M. It would further disclose that duration 5 months (700 hours)-2 months (200 hours) at Nedumangad and 3 months (500 hours) at Bangalore in Live Projects, training in association with M/s. Creative Logix, International Professional Portal Makers, extensive study materials, placement guaranteed on successful completion etc... Ext.P2 is the copy of the receipt dated 22..02..2001 for Rs.30,000/- from the complainant towards fee for Live E-Commerce Training of SED issued by Syamasree Technologies. Ext.P3 is the copy of certificate of training issued by Society of Entrepreneurship Development in favour of complainant. Ext.P3 would reveal that complainant has undergone a course training in Live E-Commerce conducted by Bhaskar College and Creative Logix at Kollam and Bangalore from the 4th day of December 2000 to 12th day of July 2001. On going through Exts. P1 to P3 it is apparent that complainant was a candidate for Live E-Commerce training and he obtained the certificate for the same. Now the grievance of the complainant is that on completion of the said course, though complainant was assured placement by the opposite parties, which was not provided by the opposite parties as agreed as per Ext.P1. The submission by the complainant is that complainant had successfully completed the said course offered by the opposite parties by virtue of Ext.P3, consequent to which opposite parties were duty bound to ensure placement from the complainant as per Ext.P1 advertisement. It has been asserted by the 1st opposite party that the said course was designed by the 2nd and addl. 4th opposite parties. In the affidavit by way of evidence filed by 2nd opposite party and it is admitted that 1st opposite party was instructed by the 2nd opposite party to give advertisement in newspapers that student would be admitted to this course only after an entrance test and an interview to be done by the 2nd opposite party. In his version, 1st opposite party pleaded that the pre-requisite for the said course was passing the Aptitude Test and subsequent interview conducted by SED. On clearing the Aptitude Test and interview, SED further insisted 90% attendance in the course and successful execution of a project assigned at the end of the live training. It is contended by opposite parties, that as per Ext.P1 the Aptitude Test was held on 02..12..2000 at Darsana EM High School at Nedumangad by the officials of SED and after valuation they finalised a list of six candidates who cleared the Aptitude Test for an interview along with parents on 08..12..2000 at Syamasree Technologies. Individual letters to this effect was sent to each successful candidate for this purpose. During the interview it was made clear that the conduct of course was entirely the responsibility of SED and Syamasree Technologies and M/s. Creative Logix, Bangalore are only their associates in the conduct of the course. To each candidate, who cleared the Aptitude Test and interview, SED offered to give an undertaking in Rs.50/- stamp paper to the effect that he will be offered a placement on condition that he secures 90% attendance in the course and successfully completes an assignment given through M/s. Creative Logix, Bangalore. Some of the candidates were not amenable to the conditions and Syamasree Technologies decided not to conduct the course if all the candidates selected do not join the course as it would not financially viable. The number of seats allotted was 12 and if at least half the strength was not there, break even was not considered possible. All the candidates were not prepared to join and the course was finally dropped by Syamasree Technologies. The submission by the 1st opposite party is that the complainant did not take Aptitude Test and interview and was not eligible for admission to the course in a proper way. The course was also dropped. It has been contended by the 1st opposite party that by middle of February 2001, the father of the complainant approached Syamasree Technologies enquiring whether his son could be admitted to the E-Commerce training of SED. The father of the complainant was intimated that the selection process is all over and that the proposed training idea is dropped. But the father of the complainant wanted to have his son's case taken up with SED. SED required the bio-data of the candidate with address and phone numbers, and that was arranged. Some days later SED informed that M/s. Creative Logix is on the look out for trainees and that the training can be arranged in full at Bangalore as the party is willing to take it without the placement offer. As the local SED Centre, Syamasree Technologies was requested to receive the fee on behalf of SED. The complainant remitted the sum on 22..02..2001 (Ext. P2). SED was informed of the remittance and immediately the transportation of the candidate to Bangalore was arranged by SED. The complainant is seen to have started training at Bangalore on 05..03..2001. The submission by 2nd and 4th opposite party is that the complainant was never interviewed by the 2nd opposite party. Students who appeared for entrance test were issued admission letter and call letter to the interview. No material on record to show that complainant had appeared for the entrance test and interview conducted by 2nd opposite party. As per Ext.P1, selection was through Aptitude Test at Darsana EM High School, Nedumangad on 02..12..2000 at 10 A.M. It is not clear from the complaint when did the complainant apply for Live E-Commerce Training. It is pertinent to note that as per Ext.P1, Live E-Commerce Training with ensured placement was by selection through Aptitude Test at Darsana EM High School. Opposite party already submitted that Aptitude Test was conducted on 02..12..2000 as per Ext.P1 but complainant was not a candidate for the Aptitude Test. Complainant has no case that he had appeared for the said test. Further Ext.P2 receipt would disclose that the complainant had remitted Rs.30,000/- towards fee for Live E-Commerce training of SED. As per Ext.P3 SED certificate of Training, the course of training in Live E-Commerce was conducted by the Bhaskar College and M/s. Creative Logix at Kollam and Bangalore. Nowhere in Ext.P3, the name of Syamasree Technologies is seen mentioned. Ext.P4 is the introductory letter given by 2nd opposite party directing the complainant to approach one Third Wave HRD Consultants at Doraiswamy Road at Ernakulam for placement. The submission by the complainant is that complainant had approached the said Third Wave HRD Consultants as per the direction of 2nd opposite party. When approached the 'Third Wave HRD Consultants' complainant was informed by them that they were only a placement agency who would secure placements for those who register with them. Ext.P5 is the letter issued by Syamasree Technologies to the complainant wherein the complainant was called upon to remit the required fee and take admission to the Live E-Commerce Training on or before 23..12..2000. As per Ext.P2, complainant is seen remitted an amount of Rs.30,000/- on 22..02..2001. Ext.D1 is the photocopy of experience certificate dated 15..09..2001 issued to the complainant by M/s. Creative Logix, Bangalore. Ext.D2 is the copy of receipt dated 18..10..2001 of Ext.D1. Ext.D3 is the photocopy of the recommendation letter dated 18..10..2001 given by 2nd opposite party to the complainant. Ext.D3 and D4 are one and the same. Ext.D4 is the copy of letter dated 18..10..2001 addressed to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party. Exts. D1 to D4 are seen marked on the part of 1st opposite party. Exts. D5 to D7 are seen marked on the part of 2nd and 4th opposite parties. Ext. D5 is the letter dated 08..11..2001 addressed to 2nd opposite party by Penta Circle Informatics. Ext.D5 was with regard to the appointment of programmers in response to the reference list and covering letter issued by 2nd opposite party. As per Ext. D5, complainant and another candidates Arun B.S. failed to appear for a written test and Aptitude Test conducted by Penta Circle Informatics. Ext.D6 is the letter dated 04..12..2001 addressed to 2nd opposite party by Fings Technologies, Changanassery informing him that complainant and another candidate recommended by 2nd opposite party did not turn up for interview. Ext.D7 is the letter issued by INTEL Institute of Information Technology addressed to 2nd opposite party informing that complainant and another candidates recommended by 2nd opposite party did not turn up for the interview. In cross examination, complainant admitted that he did not appear for interview. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that complainant had never pleaded deficiency in service in conducting the said course nor had he alleged in the complaint that the training given by opposite parties were insufficient, improper and deficient. Further, complainant himself admitted that he has completed the above said course conducted by opposite parties. As regard the said course and its completion there is no pleading in the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. A perusal of Exts. D3 to D7 would disclose the fact that opposite parties have attempted to ensure placement to the complainant at different firms, on various occasions but due to the non-co-operation of the complainant, opposite parties could not afford placement. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that complainant has not succeeded to establish deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Deficiency in service is not proved. Complaint has no merit at all which deserves to be dismissed. In the result complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15h day of July, 2008. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER S.K. SREELA : MEMBER ad. O.P.No.171/2002 APPENDIX I. Complaiant's witness: PW1 : Pramod II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Photocopy of an advertisement in the Malayala Manorama Daily posted by the opposite party. P2 : Photocopy of receipt No.78 dated 22..02..2001 for Rs. 30,000/-. P3 : Photocopy of certificate of training from the Society of Entrepreneurs Development dated 20th Nov-2001. P4 : Photocopy of letter dated 18th Oct. 2001 from 2nd opp. Party. P5 : Photocopy of letter No.SST/Admn/10/2000 dated 18..12..2000 issued to the complainant. III. Opposite parties' witness: NIL IV. Opposite parties' documents: D1 : Photocopy of certificate dated 15 Sept. 2001 from Creative Logix, Software Development and Training. D2 : Photocopy of receipt of experience certificate dated 18..10..2001. D3 : Photocopy of letter dated 18..10..2001. D4 : Photocopy of letter dated 18..10..2001 for direction for interview. D5 : Original letter dated 08..11..2001 issued to the 2nd opposite party from the addl. 4th opp. Party. D6 : Original lette with Reg.No.FNG/HR/EOT/0102/1116 dated 04..12..2001 issued to the 2nd opposite party. D7 : Original letter dated 20..10..2001 issued to the 2nd opposite party. PRESIDENT. ad.

......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad