PER HON’BLE MS.DR.RICHA BANSOD, PRESIDENT

This complaint was filed on 16/ 12/ 2017 under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

1.       The complainant is a 27 year old resident of Seawoods, Navi Mumbai. The opposite party is M/S FT Solutions Private Limited, Mira Road, East Thane. The complainant alleges that the opponent had promised the complainant a job as SAP associate consultant after completion of 1 year training with them in SAP basis IT related course. A bond dated 22^nd January, 2016 was also executed, in which it was agreed that upon successful completion of training and completion of 1 year, the trainee will be absorbed as SAP associate consultant. The complainant paid Rs.50,000/- against cash receipt No. 2015002 dated 1^st February 2016 and Rs.125000/- against cash receipt No. 2015003 dated 12^th March 2016.  The complainant alleges that there was no training imparted for even a single day, and the complainant was made to sit idle for months together. The opposite party issued an appointment letter dated 22^ndJanuary 2016 where the complainant was appointed as SAP associate consultant.   On 31^st January 2017, the complainant was terminated, stating that the complainant does not have any knowledge in SAP basis.  The complainant says that the opponent has adopted unfair trade practice under section 2 (1) (r) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complainant states that there has been a deficiency in the services by the opponent under Section 2(1 ) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act for denying to provide training to the complainant. The complainants father sent a notice through a private organisation called "International consumer rights protection Council" on 16^th September 2017.

The complainant prays that the opponent be directed to refund the full fee amount of Rs.1,75,000/-, that the opponent should be directed to pay compensation for Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment, that the opponent should be directed to pay the legal expenses of Rs.50,000/- and all of the above on interest of 18% per annum.

The complainant filed a copy of the bond dated 22^nd January 2016, copy of receipts of payments to the opposite party dated 1^st February 2016 and 13^th  March 2016, copy of appointment letter dated 22^nd January 2016, handing over letter copy dated 31^st January 2017, copy of legal notice dated 16^th  September 2017 along with the complaint.

2.       The complaint was admitted on 27^th April 2018, and the notice was sent to the opposite party.

3.       The opposite party appeared and filed their written version

In the written version, the opponent denied the contentions of the complainant.  The opponent contended that the complainant applied for the job and was offered the job as SAP associate consultant on 20^th January 2016 after an interview.  The complainant also accepted the offer on 22^nd January 2016 on a monthly fixed salary of Rs.8000/- and CTC yearly of Rs.96,000/-  The complainant also signed up a bond dated 22^nd January 2016, where the opponent says that the opponent had provided a training program to enhance the skill and knowledge of its employees. The opponent had sent a warning email dated 2^nd June, 2016 to the complainant and another email dated 4^thDecember 2016 regarding unsatisfactory performance of the complainant.

The employment of the complainant was terminated by email dated 27^th December 2016, and the complainant had replied to the same on 30^th January 2017 where the complainant said he would hand over the laptop and Employment ID. The opponent says that the father of the complainant demanded a refund of Rs.1,75,000/- and also threatened the opponents.   The opponents deny all allegations in respect of payment made by the complainant and deny that the opponent has received an amount of                   Rs.1,75,000/- towards training fees.  The opponent filed a copy of the offer letter dated 20/01/2016,  a copy of the appointment letter dated 22/01/2016, a copy of the bond date at 22/01/2016, a copy of the warning email dated        02/06/2016, a copy of the warning email dated 4^th December 2016, a copy of the termination email dated 27/12/2016, a copy of the complainant email dated 30/01/2017, a copy of the email of the father of the complainant dated 16/04/2017, and the copy of a reply email dated 19/04/2017, a copy of an email sent by complainant dated 16/09/2017, a copy of reply dated 19/09/ 2017, and the copy of a board resolution dated 30/01/2018 along with the written version.

4.       The complainant filed an affidavit of evidence and contended that if the complainant was irregular or absent, no evidence regarding attendance sheet or biometric data has been attached. The complainant claims that the Opponent’s aim was to extract money in the name of training and terminate the complainant after the completion of the bond period.  The opponent filed their evidence affidavit and denied that they have received any payment for training.  The complainant and the opponent filed written notes of argument.

The opponent also filed a pursis that the written argument filed by the opponent be taken as oral arguments and submissions.

5.       We perused the complaint and the documents filed, the written version and documents filed, affidavits of evidence, the written notes of argument, heard oral arguments.

The following points arise out of the dispute of the complainant and opponent, and we answer the said points with reasons;

REASONS

5.       As to point No.1 to 3:-  As per Consumer Protection Act 1986, a consumer means any person who avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and includes any beneficiary of such services and includes availed by him for the purposes of earning his livelihood.   The deficiency means any fault, imperfection, short coming or inadequacy in the quality and nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. As per section 2 (r ) 1 , there is adoption of unfair method and deceptive practice by falsely representing the services that have sponsorship, approval, or characteristics, which such  services do not have. The opponent has made misleading representation concerning the need for the services by initially having the complainant sign a bond as a trainee for the purpose of imparting specialised training programs and knowledge where the complainant shall not for a period of 1 year from date of joining the training resign his services with the company as per clause 1a of the bond. The bond also states that the opponent shall pay a stipend of Rs.8000/- per month for 1 year. It also states that upon successful completion of the training and completion of one year the trainee will be absorbed as SAP associate consultant and shall be bound to serve the company for a minimum period of 1 year from the date of joining.  Thereafter, on the same day, the complainant was given an appointment letter offering the complainant a position of SAP associate consultant. The complainant was required to report for duty on the same day, i.e., 22^nd January 2016.  The cash receipt of Rs. 50000 dated  1^st  February 2016 for SAP basis training fees and cash receipt dated 12^th March 2016 for Rs. 125000/- SAP basis training indicates the contradiction in the appointment of the complainant. It is apparent that the complainant has been misled with the appointment letter showing that he has been appointed as a consultant as opposed to the bond that he was made to sign on the same day showing him as a trainee. The opponent has misrepresented the stipend as a salary and, therefore, has deceived the complainant.

6.       As the complaint has paid and the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- for the purpose of training over one year, after which the complainant was to be appointed as SAP associate consultant. The opponent, by not providing any training and disguising the stipend in the garb of salary, has been deficient in service.

In view of the reasons above, the opposite party is directed to refund the fee amount of Rs.175000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of this order. As the complainant continued to receive a stipend in the duration where he was to receive training therefore no compensation is directed.

FINAL ORDER

1. The consumer complaint number CC/ 739/ 2016 is partly allowed.

2. The opposite party is directed to pay the amount Rs.1,75000/-, along with the interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of this order till the realisation of the amount to the complainant.

3. The opponent is directed to comply the aforesaid order within a period of 30 days from the receipt of this order

4. The copy of this order be furnished to both parties free of cost.

5. The member sets if any shall be returned to the complainant. In case the complainant fails to collect the same within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the order the same maybe destroyed.