Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

          This is an appeal filed by org. opponent/Indian Institute of Jewellery through Director against the order dated 21/03/2009 passed by District Consumer Forum, Thane in consumer complaint No.298/2008.  While allowing the complaint partly, District Consumer Forum has directed the appellant to refund the amount of `34,000/- to the complainant and also directed to pay `2,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and `125/- towards costs.  As such, org. opponent has filed this appeal taking strong exception to the award passed by the District Consumer Forum.

          The facts to the extent material may be stated as under :-

          The complainant/respondent herein had filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opponent.  According to the complainant on 06/06/2007 he read advertisement in Time of India issued by the Indian Institute of Jewellery.  It was a training programme inviting the students to participate in the training so as to get trained in diamond of various kinds and it was assured that after the training, students would be absorbed in the diamond industry.  Acting on the said advertisement, complainant approached Ms.Shilpa Madam in the Institute and he applied for the course of “Diamond Grading, Valuation & Identification”.  He paid requisite fee of `34,000/-.  The course was of 3 weeks starting from 13/08/2007 and ending on 06/09/2007.  It was a fast track course.  The complainant attended said course and passed the said course and he was awarded certificate about having completed the said course, but his grievance in the District Consumer Forum was that he was not getting employment in the diamond industry.  His grievance is that the opponent published misleading advertisement to attract students for their training and they were not giving any service after training is completed.  They had assured that students would be absorbed in the diamond industry, but complainant’s grievance is that he had not been absorbed and therefore, he had asked for refund of moneys which he paid towards fees and also claimed compensation of `20,000/- and cost of `125/-. 

          Opponent contested the matter by filing written version.  According to the opponent, Indian Institute of Jewellery has been established under the Companies Act and according to opponent, Smt.Deepa Sane had taken interview of the complainant, but they had not given any assurance to the complainant about placement in the diamond industry.  According to the opponent, complainant was tested for requisite skill he had obtained in the course of training, but they found that the complainant could not do grading properly when they conducted mock interview.  According to the opponent, as per Company’s Regulations, complainant was required to put his signature on the Progress Report.  Opponent therefore pleaded that they were not guilty of unfair trade practice and they were also not deficient in rendering service.  As such, they prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.

          The District Consumer Forum upon hearing rival Advocates and on considering the documents and affidavit placed on record held that the complainant had registered himself as a candidate for the training with course fee of `34,000/- and security deposit of `15,000/- and both officials of the opponent had not helped him to procure any employment.  At the instance of opponent, complainant was sent to a person who asked him why he has come for interview.  The District Consumer Forum was of the view that the opponent was guilty of unfair trade practice for misleading the person who had undergone training and therefore, District Consumer Forum held that opponent/Institute was guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and therefore, District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint partly and directed refund of course fees collected by the opponent and also directed to pay `2,000/- for mental harassment and `125/- as costs.  Aggrieved by this award, opponent/Institute has filed this appeal.

          We heard Mr.Sandeep Mahadik, Advocate for the appellant and respondent in person.

          We are finding that the respondent’s contention that he was assured of 100% placement was not borne out from the record.  What we are finding that there was misleading advertisement published by the opponent.  They had published advertisement to the effect that all the persons who were undergoing training would get job in the diamond industry, but it is experience of the complainant that there is no job guarantee or absorption as assured by the opponent.  In fact, according to the respondent, appellant/Institute is not giving any co-operation for post-training placement.  To make a show, he was asked by one Mr.Pramod Mane to approach ChintamaniJewellers , but Chitamani Jewellers shop turned him away saying that there was no job available on their establishment.  In any view of the matter, we are finding that after completing training, complainant is not getting service in the diamond industry and opponent is not helping him to procure employment in the diamond industry.  So, what we are finding that there is unfair trade practice on the part of Appellant in publishing misleading advertisement and in inviting students or persons to join their training and then after training is over they are left high and dry.  No post-training placement is being offered by the opponent and therefore, we are finding that the opponent is guilty of publishing misleading advertisement to attract various students for their training programme.  Thus, opponent/Institute is guilty of unfair trade practice by passing misleading advertisement.  We therefore direct the Institute to stop immediately issuing such misleading advertisement henceforth.

          We are finding that the complainant had completed course and complainant had no grievance in respect of conduction of said course by the appellant/Institute.  In fact at page-79 of appeal compilation, there is feedback from the complainant, who had clearly mentioned that he had achieved objects of training course.  He ticked mark ‘very good’ on Feedback Form as regards Lectures, Theory Lectures and Practical sessions.  He was happy with the number of diamonds given for grading.  Virtually, every column filled in by him is showing that he was satisfied with the conduct of course by the Institute.  When this is so, District Consumer Forum erred in law in ordering refund of `34,000/- to the complainant.  This is contrary to the Feedback Form filled in by the respondent.  So, District Consumer Forum surely should not have directed the appellant to refund `34,000/- to the respondent and to this extent, appeal will have to be allowed.  But, we are awarding compensation of `10,000/- for the reason that the appellant/Institute is guilty of publishing misleading advertisement to attract students/trainees to their Institute.  We also do not approve of the statements and assertions made by the appellant/Institute in the advertisement that after completing training programme, trainees would get jobs readily.  Such type of misleading advertisement should not be published henceforth by the appellant/Institute.  Instead of refunding whole amount of `34,000/- to the respondent, we direct appellant to pay `10,000/- as compensation for misleading advertisement published by the appellant/Institute.  So, we delete from the operative order of the District Consumer Forum clause No.2 in toto and in clause No.3, we mention that instead of `2,000/-, appellant/Institute should pay `10,000/- and cost of `125/- as awarded by the District Consumer Forum.  We also impose further cost of `2,000/- which shall be paid to the respondent pertaining to cost of this appeal.  From the amount deposited by the appellant in this Commission, an amount of `12,125/- shall be paid to the respondent directly by the Registrar of this Commission and rest of the amount shall be refunded back to the appellant.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.