STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

1.     The Senior Vice President, M/s Avalon Aviation Academy Pvt. Ltd., Corporation Office, Aptec House, A-65 MIDC, Andheri (East), Mumbai.

2.     The Regional Manager, M/s Avalon Aviation Academy Pvt. Ltd., # A-37, Sector 4, Noida (U.P.).

                                                                .…Appellants

                                Versus

Mohd. Anwar Malik son of Sh.Sadeek Malik r/o House No.245, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh.

                                                …. Respondent 

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh.Kasturi Lal, Advocate for the appellants.

                                ----

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.                    This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.01.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it accepted the complaint filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants) as under:-

                “As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and OPs are directed to Rs.55,112/- along with interest @ 9% from June, 2009 when the period of one year to provide replacement expired till its realization besides Rs.7000/- as costs of litigation, within one month  from the date of receipt of the certified copy”. 

2.                    The facts, in brief, are that, the Opposite Parties, through various newspaper advertisements,  attracted the students by assuring job placement and committed refund of 50% fee back in the event of non-placement. It was stated that the complainant got admitted himself in one year diploma in Professional Cabin Crew Service (DPCC) in the year 2008  by depositing the first installment of Rs.5618/-, vide invoice No.081 dated  30.05.2008 as Registration fee (Annexures C-2 and C-3) out of total fee of Rs.1,10,225/-. It was further stated that the said course was to commence from 4th June. It was further stated that vide letter dated 9.09.2008 (Annexure C-4), the Opposite Parties assured guarantee of placement of the candidate in the line, for which, he was enrolled within the stipulated period of one year and, in case of default, they were to be liable to refund 50% of the fee.  It was further stated that the full course fee of Rs.1,10,225/- was paid and the complainant completed the course successfully for which a certificate with grade of A+ (Annexure C-6) was issued on 16.06.09. Besides this, the Opposite Parties also issued performance statement on 26.06.2009 bearing Sr.No.1462 (Annexure C-7). It was further stated that during internship, the Academy insisted the complainant to appear in the interview for ground staff with Spice Jet Airlines and he worked there for a period of 3 months and 12 days i.e. from 06.01.2010 to 18.04.2010. He was getting salary of Rs.11750/- per month with deduction of Rs.1000/- as CPF. It was further stated that the said offer was accepted, on the assurance of the Academy that it would assist the complainant, for job in the line, in which, he completed the course but, in the meantime, he could join as Ground staff instead of sitting idle in order to meet the day-to-day expenses. It was further stated that as per the terms and conditions of enrollment, the Opposite Parties, did not assist him, for any interview, as a cabin crew and, as such, they failed to provide any assistance to him in the line in which he completed the diploma course. It was further stated that the complainant became entitled to the refund of 50% fee i.e. Rs.55,112/- as per the terms and conditions of the enrollment (Annexure C-5). It was further stated that the complainant also sent e-mail dated 12.10.2010 (Annexure C-8) to this effect, to the Opposite Parties, but to no effect. Ultimately, the complainant served a legal notice dated 12.10.2010 (Annexure C-9) upon the Opposite Parties but to no effect. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were, thus, deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.                    The Opposite Parties were duly served, but nobody appeared, on their behalf, and hence they were proceeded exparte.

4.                    The complainant led evidence, in support of his case.

5.                    After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

6.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.

7.                    We have heard the Counsel for the appellants, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.                    The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that M/s Skypenet India was the franchisee of the appellants and the said  franchisee established a centre at SCO NO.118-119-120, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, for providing training classes.  It was further submitted that the stationery material/invoice books etc. were used in the name of the appellants.  It was admitted that 50% course fee was to be refunded if the candidate could not get the placement, in Airlines and its peripheral industries, within one year after the completion of course. It was further submitted that the complainant took admission in the franchisee of the appellants, and payments were made to the said franchisee. It was further submitted that all the modules of the course and other formalities were completed/arranged by the said franchisee. It was further submitted that the complainant himself deleted Opposite Party No.3, before filing the written statement, by the appellants.  It was further submitted that on 30.12.2011, the appellants could not appear before the District Forum as the date of hearing of the complaint was wrongly noted as 30.01.2012 by the Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties and thereafter they were proceeded against exparte on 30.12.2011 (in fact 16.12.2011) and the exparte order was pronounced on 27.01.2012. It was further submitted that, under these circumstances, the order of the District Forum, being illegal and perverse, is liable to be set aside.

9.                    From the perusal of the zimini order dated 29.08.2011, passed  by the District Forum, it is evident that none appeared, on behalf of the Opposite Parties and they were proceeded against exparte. However, on 12.10.2011, misc. application No.155/2011 was moved by the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, for setting aside the exparte order dated 29.08.2011, and the case was adjourned to 21.10.2011 for its reply and consideration. On 21.10.2011, the exparte order against the Opposite Parties was set aside, subject to payment of costs of Rs.250/-.  Thereafter, again on 16.12.2011, none appeared, on behalf of the Opposite Parties and they were again proceeded against exparte and finally the District Forum after hearing the arguments of the Counsel for the complainant passed the exparte order dated 27.01.2012.    It is, thus, evident that the Opposite Parties were rightly proceeded against exparte twice, due to their non-appearance before the District Forum. Their act and conduct, shows that they were not interested in contesting the case diligently. The contention of the counel for the appellants, that the date of hearing was wrongly noted as 30.01.2012 instead of 30.12.2011 (in fact 16.12.2011) could not be believed, because if the Opposite Parties or their Counsel had any doubt regarding the date, in their mind, they could have confirmed there and then, or otherwise they could easily confirm the same from the official website but they failed to do so.  Hence, we do not find any substance, in the contention of the Counsel for the appellants. The same is accordingly rejected.

10.                 The submission of the Counsel for the appellants that the respondent/complainant took admission with M/s Skypenet India, the franchisee of the appellants, and failed to implead it, as a necessary party, in the array of Opposite Parties and, as such, there was no privity of contract between the complainant, and the appellants, and they would be only liable for the act and conduct of M/s Skypenet India on the principle of vicarious liability of master and  agent, is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because the brochure (Annexure C-1), the invoice (Annexure C-2) regarding payment of the fee and the  certificate (Annexure C-3) were issued by M/s Avalon Aviation Academy Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the appellants.  From these documents, it is clear that the appellants had a privity of contract with the respondent/complainant and, thus, they cannot escape their liability.  They failed to provide job placement to the complainant as assured by them, according to brochure, Annexure C-1. The District Forum, was, thus right, in holding that the Opposite Parties were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

11.                 The order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

12.                 For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, in limine, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

13.                 Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.                 The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.                                                                                      Sd/-

26 .03.2012                                        [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT         

                                                                                                            Sd/-                                  [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER

cmg