PER SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

             Succinctly put, on 3.12.2009 the complainant opted for a Module PLM (Plant Lifecycle Management) course with OP-1, who was running authorized training center for OP-3, and paid a sum of Rs.1,32,800/-. The said course was to be completed within 5 months while completing 200 hours.  He started his course/training with OP-1 but unfortunately his father became seriously ill, was admitted in Aikat Hospital, Mohali and he could not attend the course/training being the only son. He enquired from OP-1 regarding option for extension,  in case he was unable to complete his course/ training within the stipulated period, and they informed him that the same could be done but only with extension fee of Rs.15,442/- for 2 months and the same could be extended only after the expiry of 5 months.  In the meantime his father recovered and he also got engaged.  Thereafter on 4.5.2010 as agreed, he contacted OP-1 alongwith a sum of Rs.15,442/- for getting the extension of course and he was told to make a demand draft in favour of SAP India Pvt. Ltd.  However, on 5.5.2010 he received a telephonic call from OP-1 saying that the extension of course was not possible because OP-3 had stopped extension without any prior information and demanded increased course fee again to the tune of Rs.1.65 lacs. He continuously approached OPs and also served them with legal notice dated 28.6.2010 but to no avail.  Hence this complaint.    

2.             In her written reply OP-1 did not dispute the facts with regard to admission as well as the fee paid by the complainant.  It has been vehemently denied that the father of the complainant fell ill or that she ever assured that the extension of the course could be easily done and could be extended after the expiry of 5 months from the date of start of the course.  It has been stated that request of the complainant for extension was rejected as he remained engaged in his interview at UK, failed to submit the relevant documents, including the immigration stamp on the passport by OP-2, and did not assign the reasonable and genuine reason for extension. It has been submitted that the extension of course could not be granted as a matter of right and was the sole discretion of M/s SAP India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3). Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             OPs 2 & 3 in their separate written reply took almost similar pleas as were taken by OP-1 in her written reply and also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

6.             Annexure C-1 is the copy of the email dated 05.05.2010 written by the complainant to OP-1, wherein it was mentioned by the complainant that without circulating any notification how the OP-2 and OP-3 can stop the extension of course.  Annexure-3 is the email dated 14.05.2010, written by the complainant to OP-1 in which it was mentioned by him that the cause for not attending the course/training is that he was called to U.K. in December 2009 in connection with some job, as he was required to extend his stay to attend a six week training and assessment course held at Nottingham office till 23.02.2010. The same mail was forwarded to OP-2 and OP-3 by OP-1 on 24.05.2010 vide Annexure C-3 with a request of the complainant regarding extension of the said course but the same was rejected by OP-2 and OP-3 vide email Annexure C-4 with the remarks that “I see no genuine reason for extension.  Why did the participant take up admission when he was about to leave for UK, then why was the entire month of March lost completing only 30-40 hrs?”.  Thereafter a legal notice Annexure C-7 dated 28.06.2010 was sent by the complainant to the OPs with an advise to extend the course within a period of 7 days otherwise he would proceed the competent court of law.

7.             The main contention of the complainant is that despite promise by the OPs regarding extension of the said course, the extension was not granted to him,  as he received a telephonic call from OP-1 saying that the extension of course was not possible because OP-3 had stopped extension without any prior information and demanded increased course fee again to the tune of Rs.1.65 lacs. He further contended  that email Annexure-3 dated 20.05.2010, regarding request for extension of the course, was only a thought which was given to him by OP-1 with her malafide intentions for drafting a false letter as basis for extension of course so that  he could be excused to get an extension, otherwise, the real fact was that his father was not feeling well and was admitted and discharged from the hospital on 27.01.2010 and thereafter he wanted his son (complainant) to be married as early as possible and accordingly he got engaged with Ms. Pardeep Kaur who happens to be a Canadian resident.

8.             On the other hand the OPs contended that the request of the complainant for extension was rejected as he remained engaged in his interview at UK and also the complainant failed to submit the relevant documents, including the immigration stamp on the passport by OP-2, and did not assign the reasonable and genuine reason for extension. In support of their contentions the OPs have placed on record the copy of the letter dated 13.05.2010 Annexure R-1/Annexure A issued by ASIANA Limited certifying that the complainant remained in interview at Nottingham w.e.f. 15.12.2009 till 23.02.2010. 

9.             We have gone through the records very carefully and find that the complainant has not been able to place any agreement/evidence to prove that he was entitled for extension of the said course.  The complainant has also not been able to place any record to show that he ever enquired from OP-1 regarding option for extension of course which was confirmed by OP-1. Even this much has not been proved that for extension of the course, the OPs ever demanded and extension fee or increased course fee to the tune of Rs.1.65 lacs. Whereas contrary to the OPs have placed on record the copy of the letter dated 13.05.2010 Annexure R-1 issued by ASIANA Limited clearly shows that the complainant remained in interview at Nottingham w.e.f. 15.12.2009 till 23.02.2010.

10.           The contention of the complainant that he was about to take extension of the course only due to the reason that he want to take care of his father, who was not keeping well from last few years and got admitted in Aikat hospital in Phase 2, Mohali and was discharged on 27.01.2010, cannot be accepted as correct because no such admission/discharge certificate of any hospital has been placed on record by the complaint to prove this fact.

11.           In the entire complaint the complainant has not pointed out any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  He left the course because he attended  interview call at ASIANA limited U.K. and remained in Nottingham w.e.f. 15.12.2009 till 23.02.2010 whereafter as per Annexure-A, he was offered a position of IT Manager by ASIANA Limited UT for their new protect staring in India by Mid October, 2010. If the complainant intentionally left the course, as he was offered a position of IT Manager by ASIANA Limited UT for their new protect staring in India by Mid October, 2010, we cannot attribute any deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and the OPs cannot be asked to extend the course or to refund the fee. It has been clearly mentioned in the terms and conditions under the heading Course Cancellation that there is no refund against the cancellation of the course and the course is non transferable.

12.           Otherwise also the complainant could not point out any provision in the terms and conditions of the said course (Annexure now marked R-3), if the course was to be compulsorily extended on the request of the complainant/applicant or the fee was to be refunded. In our view, the extension of course could not be granted as a matter of right and it was the sole discretion of M/s SAP India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3) and the complainant without any agreement/document cannot make himself entitled for the same on its own will. In order to file the complaint it was necessary for the complainant to show as to what is the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs which in the present complaint the complainant has not been able to show.

13.           In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that neither there is any deficiency on the part of the OPs nor they were bound to extend the said course or refund the fees. There is no merit in this complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.

                         Sd/-                                Sd/-