DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.390/2010
Sh. Rohit Rawat
S/o Anand Singh
A-1/196, Dilshad Extension-II,
DLF, Ghaziabad-201010 ….Complainant
Versus
MASSCO Media
N-1, South Extension-I
New Delhi-110016 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 14.06.2010 Date of Order : 21.11.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Briefly stated, the complainant who himself claims to be an Ex-passout Student of OP took admission in master programme in TV Production and Broadcast Journalism for the year 2008-09 in the OP institute and accordingly paid fee of Rs.85750/- and the OP issued the receipt. The OP took the exams and certificate was issued to him in the year 2009 which was incorrect and subsequently OP issued a corrected certificate. It is submitted that the teachers engaged by the OP were under undergraduate and were not qualified enough to teach subjects. They had never handled camera or lighting but were teaching the students which is an illegal act in itself. Some of the faculty members were undergraduate and were teaching master programme. The complainant during his entire academic session brought this fact to the notice of the management but they took no action but gave false assurance. Hence, the complainant wasted one year and did not learn anything as the OP failed to provide the proper training. The OP had issued incorrect certificates and subsequently corrected them when the complainant protested against it. Hence, the act of the OP is arbitrarily, illegal and wrong and amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant requested for refund of money as the OP did not provide any service to him. Aggrieved by the act of the OP the complainant had left with no option but to approach this forum for the following prayers:-
- Direct the OP to refund fee amount paid by the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% p.a.
- Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.51,000/- for the harassment suffered by the complainant due to the arbitrary act of the OP.
- Direct the OP to pay litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.
OP in the written statement has inter-alia stated that the fee amount was only in proportionate to the education provided by the OP. It is submitted that the OP had experienced faculty members both permanent and as visiting faculty. It is denied that the teachers engaged by the OP institute were undergraduate and were not qualified enough to teach subjects. It is submitted that as per the ability and qualifications of the students, they get selected and the OP as per their promise held interviews which can be demonstrated by the data sheet in which the complainant appeared and also got selected by Massco Media as Asstt. Producer on 01.08.09. Hence, the OP cannot be held liable for any such wastage of one year as alleged by the complainant, it was only because of his lack of intellectual abilities and sincerity that he could not perform well in the interview in which he was appeared/participated. It is submitted that the complainant was paid a stipend of Rs.7000/- per month. It is submitted that on the personal request of the complainant the fees was reduced to the extent of Rs.30,000/- as a part of corporate social responsibility. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder and reiterated the averments made in the complaint. It is stated as hereunder:-
“Para 5 …the Interrship provided by the OP was only for a period of 3 months where Complainant was made to work for 12 to 15 hours and the stipend paid was not regular and was given only when it was demanded…”
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Col. (Retd). Pradeep Gupta, Head HR (Administration) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
OP has thereafter been proceeded exparte.
Parties have not filed written arguments.
We have heard the oral arguments of the complainant and have also gone through the record.
It is not in dispute that the complainant took admission in master programme in TV Production and Broadcast Journalism for the year 2008-09 in the OP institute and paid fee of Rs.85750/- (copy Annexure-A/1). The OP issued a certificate (copy Annexure A/2) to the complainant. The complainant sent a letter dated 13.01.2010 regarding placement as Annexure-A/5 to the OP. The OP submitted the papers regarding appointment of regular staff and visiting staff. We mark it as Mark A for the purpose of proper identification.
It is evident from the documents filed by the complainant himself and as well as the OP that the complainant had completed one year course and the certificate was issued to him (copy Annexure-A/2). Complainant was given a stipend per month by the OP. He has not denied in the replication that he was appointed as an Asstt. Producer in Massco India on 1-8-2009. After completion of one year course and getting the certificate he even ceased to be “consumer.” The complainant has not filed any evidence on the record to show that the OP was duty bound to provide placement to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. Getting the job after completion of the course depends on the person’s capacity and the OP cannot be held responsible if the complainant could not be able to get a desired job. Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it and since the OP is now exparte with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 25.11.17.
