BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 394/2003 Filed on 30.09.2003

Dated : 28.02.2011

Complainant:

Rajesh Nair. R, T.C 13/114-2, Sreeprabha, Nalumukku, Pettah P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 024.

(By adv. S. Reghukumar)

Opposite parties :

1. M/s Jay Info Systems (P) Ltd., Corporate Office, Essar Plaza, Sreekaryam, Thiruvananthapuram-695 017.

    

2. P.S. Jayakumaran Nair, Managing Director, Jay Info Systems (P) Ltd., Corporate Office, Essar Plaza, Sreekaryam, Thiruvananthapuram-695 017.

    

3. P.S. Vijayakumar (Director, Jay Info Systems (P) Ltd.), Vazhavilakom, Kawdiar P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 003.

    

4. Rema G. Appan, W/o Gowri Appan, Director, Jay Info Systems (P) Ltd., Principal Officer Incharge of the company, Sansar, Devaswam Board Jn, Kawadiar P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-3.

    

5. Sudha. R, Director and Principal Officer incharge of Training and Finance Jay Info Systems (P) Ltd., Corporate Office, Essar Plaza, Sreekaryam, Thiruvananthapuram-695 017.

    

6. S. Ani, (Director, Jay Info Systems (P) Ltd), Flat No. 1-B1, Skyline Symphony, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.

This O.P having been taken as heard on 31.12.2010, the Forum on 28.02.2011 delivered the following :

ORDER

SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER

This case has been filed by one Rajesh Nair. R and his grievance is as follows: The complainant is a post graduate and is having M.C.A degree. Complainant was working as Data Processing Assistant in the Higher Secondary Directorate at Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant saw an advertisement published by the opposite parties in “The Hindu” daily newspaper Thiruvananthapuram Edition dated 11.01.2002 wherein it was informed that the project named “PRONIT”, a Network Integration Technology Project is a unique project designed by the company to equip the professionals to face the competition in the international and national job market. It is an integration of training, certification, experience and exposure. To be precise it is a synchronization of MCSE(Microsoft), CCNA(Cisco) and SCSA(Sun Solaris). The complainant prompted by the project profile mentioned in the advertisement decided to join the training course imparted by the opposite parties. The complainant applied for joining the course and thereafter was called for an interview on 22.02.2002. At the time of interview the opposite parties reiterated the benefits of the course and informed the details of the remittance of fee for the course. It was informed by the opposite parties that fee has to be paid in four installments according to the convenience of the complainant. The first installment of fee of Rs. 10,000/- was paid on 04.03.2002 and 2^nd installment of fee of Rs. 50,000/- was paid on 17.04.2002. The training course commenced on 04.03.2002 for a period of 6 months. The course was to culminate on 04.09.2002. The first certification “MCP” which was scheduled to be finished in one month took 3 months to complete. During the said 3 months the laboratory was not arranged properly and the facilities required for the conduct of the course was not available. There was lack of infrastructure for the conduct of course. There were only six classnet computers which were in working condition, whereas there were 17 students. Hence the students including the complainant had to wait for hours to do the lab works. The said circumstances constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. There was a lack of infrastructure for the conduct of training of the sort mentioned in the advertisement. There was delay in the conduct of training, indifference, lack of competent staff and infrastructure and the said events constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant filed the complaint seeking the reimbursement of the fees with 18% interest, compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- costs Rs. 10,000/- and other reliefs.

The 2^nd opposite party has filed version for and on behalf of all the opposite parties contending as follows: The complainant is not a consumer and the controversy involved in the complaint is not a consumer dispute. That in the transaction as alleged entered between the parties to the above dispute the training service has already been imparted and fully enjoyed by the complainant to his full satisfaction and the complainant cannot seek any relief from this company as such. The complainant himself is well aware that the opposite party company has started it by its directors to give training so as to equip the professional of I.T field to face the competition in the International and national job markets. Software development, network training, network consultancy and network information and technology project such CCNA training procedure were given to the parties and engineers in the said company. Complainant admitted that he received sufficient training from the company. The more time he stayed means more infrastructure of the company the complainant used. The complainant himself admitted that he has successfully completed the course. It was only due to the inefficiency of the complainant he has taken such time to finish the course and not due to any deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties. The training started as envisaged in the stipulated time by the company. The complainant was given sufficient training for the CCNA and SCSA course. There was sufficient infrastructure and the same was fully utilized by the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties. That some miscreants committed panic in the premises of the company which was due to the influence from the side of similar competitors. The complainant also colluded with them and created situation with them which ultimately led to the defunct of the company. When the company was running in full swing as per the design of the directors, this complainant and also with some of his henchman obstructed the functions of the company due to which the directors were not able to enter the premises of the company ultimately it resulted to civil suit before the Hon'ble Rent Control Court, Trivandrum and the court closed the premises and took over the entire infrastructure of the company. It was beyond the control of the directors. Due to the unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances created due to the influence of the complainant and his henchmen as law abiding citizens, the 2^nd opposite party moved up a winding up petition under the relevant sections of the Companies Act 1956 which is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. The complaint is to be dismissed in limine since the complaint is misconceived due to the non-joinder of parties and also due to unsustainable contentions deliberately to harass the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs whatsoever and is not entitled to claim and recover anything from the opposite parties in the light of what is stated above.

Complainant has filed affidavit. Exts. P1 to P3 documents were produced on behalf of the complainant. Opposite party has produced one document.

The points for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint?

Points (i) & (ii):- The allegation of the complainant is that there was delay in the conduct of training, lack of competent staff and infrastructure and besides these the complainant was forced to do the marketing work of the product Ednit which was not stated in the advertisement. The opposite parties have contended that the opposite parties never acted against the advertisement which they have made in the daily. The opposite parties have further contended that the complainant has voluntarily withdrawn from the course after utilizing all the sophisticated infrastructure provided by the opposite parties.

Exts. P2 & P3 prove the payment of Rs. 60,000/- to opposite parties by the complainant. As per Ext. P1 advertisement, it could be seen that the opposite parties have assured that “PRONIT” Network Integration Technology Project is a unique project designed by the company to equip the professionals to face the competition in the international and national job market. It is an integration of training, certification, experience and exposure. To be precise it is a synchronization of MCSE(Microsoft), CCNA(Cisco) and SCSA(Sun Solaris). There is no whisper regarding marketing work of Ednit in the advertisement. It is the specific allegation of the complainant that he was forced to do the marketing work of the product Ednit and that what was promised in the said advertisement is a training course and not marketing work. The opposite parties have not specifically denied the said allegation. Both parties have filed affidavit in support of their contention.

In the version the opposite parties have taken out a contention that more time the complainant stayed means the complainant used more infrastructure of the company which goes to prove that the complainant had to stay for some more time in the opposite party's company. It is a known fact that no institution would allow a student to continue the training beyond the specified period. If the complainant had stayed for long means the opposite parties had to accommodate the complainant for long for want of training. The complainant has alleged that even though the training for the CCNA had started after 4 months after the complainant joined the course, the training for the complainant was not started as envisaged. That there were 44 trainees of the previous batch who had also not started the training for the CCNA. Hence it was only after the training of the 44 trainees who belonged to previous batch, the complainant could start his training for the CCNA. Further only 12 among the 44 trainees of the earlier batch could complete the training and got certification, that too after a period of 3 months. The complainant never got the training promised for the CCNA course and SCSA course. The circumstances stated above occurred due to lack of infrastructure as only 6 persons could be imparted training at a time. There were only 6 computers and the students were more than 50. Hence it was impossible to pursue the training with the infrastructure that was available. The opposite parties miserably failed to give training as promised. The said circumstances constituted deficiency in service, imperfection in service and unfair trade practice. The opposite parties have not furnished any documents to show that the complainant was given training within the time assured by opposite parties. The opposite parties have further not furnished any evidence to prove that the complainant was given training for CCNA and SCSA courses.

The complainant has admitted in the complaint that he had successfully completed the MCP Examination and received the certificate from Microsoft Corporation, but the same could not be undertaken in time solely due to the deficiency in service of the opposite party. The opposite party has contended that since the complainant obstructed the functioning of the company, a civil suit has been filed before the Rent Control Court, Trivandrum. But opposite parties have not furnished any records to substantiate the same. Furthermore, we find that this issue has nothing to do with the latest complaint.

In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that though the training was given to the complainant, the same has been given much beyond the schedule of time as assured by opposite parties. Further the opposite parties have not provided the training for the CCNA course and SCSA course. In the light of the above, we find that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the delay caused and the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. We find that the opposite parties shall pay Rs. 25,000/- towards the same along with a cost of Rs. 2,000/-.

In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite parties shall pay Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation along with a cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

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 28^th day of February 2011.

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

O.P. No. 394/2003

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of the advertisement

P2 - Copy of the receipt No. 154 dated 04.03.2002

P3 - Copy of the receipt No. 171 dated 17.04.2002

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Copy of Memorandum of Association.

PRESIDENT