DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.18/2018

Sh. Prateek S/o Sh. Pramod Kumar Gupta

B-9, Hilltop Apartments,

895 F, Ward 8, Mehrauli,

New Delhi - 110030

                                                                                                                        ….Complainant

Versus

Mams air Pvt. Ltd.

Through its Director,

Picadilly 3, Royal Palms Estate,

Aarey Colony, Goregaon East,

Mumbai – 400065

Mr. Mansoof Ali Mohd. Shabbir, Director

Mams Air Pvt. Ltd.

Picadilly 3, Royal Palms Estate,

Aarey Colony, Goregaon East,

Mumbai - 400065                                                                                             ….Opposite Party

       Date of Institution    :         25.01.2017

       Date of Order            :         04.02.2022

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava

                The complainant is a trained pilot possessing Commercial Pilot License. With a view to improve his employability he was seeking to upgrade his skills in multi engine aircraft. He came across an advertisement of OP No.1 and requested them for its brochure and other training details. The brochure of OP No.1 contained several packages, one of which was Multi Engine rating, which complainant was looking forward for. The complainant submitted the application form to OP No.1 on 25.02.2017 and transferred a sum of Rs 30,000/- towards Canada registration, processing and medical examination as demanded by OP 1. Another sum of Rs. 30,000/- was paid by the complainant towards visa filing fees on 21.03.2017. It is stated the complainant’s application for visa was rejected on 27.07.2017 for want of support from OP No.1. The visa was however granted on 22.09.2017. It is further stated that complainant was proceeding with all the formalities under a bona-fide belief that the OP’s are processing his request for CFI MEI (Certified Flight Instructor with Multi Engine Instrument Rated) however he was shocked to receive a message on his What’s App on 11.10.2017 from OP No.3 informing about the unavailability of Multi Engine in their academy, which is about 8 months from the date of processing of application. Accordingly, the complainant decided not to join the training. The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs. 60,000/- paid to OP 1, Rs. 30,000/- towards flight tickets for travel to Mumbai for medical examination. He also claimed damages @ Rs. 1,00,000/- per month for a period of 11 months w.e.f February 2017 to January 2018 for causing loss of employment. A sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- is claimed towards mental harassment.

OP’s were proceeded ex-parte on 16.01.2019. Ex-parte evidence was led by the complainant. A certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 was also filed to support the electronic records filed by complainant.

This Commission has gone through the pleadings and documents filed by the complainant. The Complainant has been able to prove before this Commission that the brochure of OP No.1 categorically claimed that a Multi Engine Rating as one of its packages, he submitted the application form for the course named as CFI MEI on 25.02.2017 and that complainant would be able to obtain his training in Multi Engine Instrument rated which led him to spend a sum of Rs. 90,000/- under the headings mentioned above. This Commission is of the view that OP No.1 indulged in unfair trade practice in leading complainant to believe that he will be able to train himself in Multi Engine Rating therefore OP No.1 is liable to refund the sum of Rs. 90,000/- along with interest @ 6 % per annum from 28.02.2017, being the date of his travel to Mumbai till realization.  The said sum be released to the claimant within three months of passing of this order failing which the OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 9 % pa to the complainant till realization.

The claim of Rs. 11,00,000/- towards the loss of employment is rejected because complainant is unable to prove that he was drawing a salary of
Rs. 1,00,000/- per month and had lost his job to pursue his admission with
OP 3. The claim against OP No. 2 and OP No. 3 is dismissed since OP No.2 is an employee of OP No. 1 and thus not liable for any damages and there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP No. 3.

File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.