BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.67/2018

DATED ON THIS THE 29^th August, 2019

      Present:   1) Sri. C.V.Maragoor

B.Com., L.L.M., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.           

                                        B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri C.V.MARAGOOR,

President

1.       This complaint is filed by Gibson Silvan Castelino aged 28 years resident of Mysuru to direct the opposite party M/s IT Champs Software Pvt. Ltd., Mysuru represented by Director Mrs.Prajaka Kutnikar to refund Rs.50,000/- with interest at 18% p.a., Rs.65,312/- towards loss of pay for two months, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and inconvenience and cost of this litigation.
2.       The complainant was employee of T and M Services Consulting Pvt. Ltd., for the project of M/s Larsen and Toubro Ltd., Mysuru as Network Engineer. The complainant had approached the opposite party for the training in SAP basis which is a very reputed course which the employers are demanding.  The opposite party company Director told that SAP is full time course from 9.30 AM to 6.00 PM daily six days in a week and no classes on 2^nd and 4^th Saturday.  The total course fee being Rs.1,50,000/-.  The complainant had resigned from his job and get relieved on 31.01.2017 and joined the opposite party institution on 01.02.2017 upon payment of first instalment of Rs.50,000/-. 
3.       It is the case of complainant that as soon as he has joined the course, the training was being conducted only for himself as no other candidate was admitted.  The employee of the opposite party was trainer and he used to come to give training to the complainant whenever he was free from his job.  The said instructor would come to the complainant hardly for one or two hours daily and instruct him without any structure, syllabus or planned lesson planning.  The complainant came to know that the opposite party had no full time instructors and that too without any proper structure or syllabus for training of SAP basis. 
4.        The complainant was very regular from day one but he was made to sit like a watchman only for one or two hours in a day and on few days not even one hour.  The complainant has waited patiently for ten days for things to improve but it did not, rather it worsened.  The complainant has approached the opposite party – Director and explained what was happening in training programme.  But the Director told her ignorance about    happening in her company itself.  The complainant has discontinued the training and issued notice for refund of Rs.50,000/- amount paid for the course.  When there was no response from the opposite party, he constrained to file this complaint.
5.      The opposite party appeared through its learned counsel and filed written version contending that the complainant does not come within the purview of the definition of Consumer. The opposite party has denied each allegations made in the complaint.  However, the opposite party admitted that it is having professionals to conduct the programme in SAP basis. The opposite party conducts non-certification programme in their premises to those who are interested in undergoing the programme at cost.  It is further case of opposite party that it is not the timing for training as alleged by the complainant.  The opposite party has employed about 100 executives working during the working hours in the company.  The complainant has approached to undergo internship with the opposite party for a period of six months which consists of three months internship and remaining three months exposure will be provided by assigning on the live projects along with the mentors.  The opposite party has to invest lot of human resources value added time.  Hence, Rs.1,50,000/- was charged on the complainant for a period of six months which was payable in three equal installments.  The complainant has paid Rs.50,000/- towards first installment and started attending the internship with the opposite party. This is not course fee as alleged by the complainant.
6.        It is the case of opposite party that it is a full fledged software company which is specialized in SPA.  Those who are interested in getting exposure to SAP basis programme they have to undergo internship and on the job training.  Lots of assignments were given to the complainant and he was very lazy and never used to complete the tasks. The complainant never had any interest to undergo internship and always used to loiter in the work premises.  The opposite party never informed the complainant to resign to his job.  The complainant never joined as a trainee nor the opposite party is a training institute.  The complainant has voluntarily abandoned the programme abruptly by himself.  On the above grounds, the opposite party asked to dismiss the complaint.
7.     The complainant filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and produced eight documents in support of his case.  The opposite party – Director filed her affidavit in lieu of evidence.
8.       We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant in addition to written brief submitted by both the parties and the points that would arise for determination are as under:-  

1. Whether the complainant proves that he is a consumer under the C.P.Act?
2. Whether the complainant further proves that the act of opposite party not imparting training properly amounts to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice
3. Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?

9.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the affirmative;

Point No.2 :- In the affirmative;

Point No.3 :- In the partly affirmative for the below;

:: R E A S O N S ::

10.         Point Nos.1 to 3:- The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the opposite party has collected Rs.50,000/- as consideration to impart training to the complainant as such, the complainant becomes consumer under the C.P.Act, 1986.  The opposite party has not disputed payment of Rs.50,000/- cash by complainant on 01.02.2017 out of Rs.1,50,000/- to be paid in three instalments for imparting training or internship.  The complainant has sent E-mail to the opposite party on 14.02.2017 stating the averments of complaint. The opposite party has sent reply to the complainant on 16.02.2017.  It is stated in the reply by opposite party that they have gone through his grievance and regret for all the inconvenience faced by him. After discussions with the consultants assigned to you, they understand that trainings were imparted on the below mentioned topics till you last attended from 02.02.2017 to 10.02.2017.  Further it is stated in the reply that at IT Champs our emphasis has always been to hands on skills, hence we engage expert practicing consultants to impart practical knowledge to students and not just any trainer to conduct classes.  It would be too early the judge and blame about the training delivery.  In last sentence it is stated that assuring you of our best services always.  If the reply of the opposite party has read as whole it can be easily said that the opposite party intended to impart training to the complainant.  If it was not imparting training, it would not have used the word training many times in the reply letter dated 16.02.2017.  On the contrary, in written version it has come up with a new story that the opposite party is not imparting training but it is giving internship.  The opposite party has collected consideration from the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- out of Rs.1,50,000/- for imparting training to learn SAP basis.  The opposite party has collected consideration to render services to the complainant.  Therefore, the act of opposite party to learn SAP basis to the complainant becomes service as such the complainant is a consumer under the Act. 
11.       The complainant in the complaint as well as E-mail dated 14.02.2017 made allegations against the opposite party that only trainer who was free in his job in the opposite party company used to come to him hardly one or two hours in a day and remaining time he was to sit idle.  The opposite party instructor was coming to him without any structure, syllabus or planned lesson planning.  There was no full time professional or SAP partner or instructor for training of SAP basis.  The opposite party in E-mail dated 16.02.2017 has admitted the allegations made in the complaint and accordingly given reply that regret for the inconvenience faced by him.  The opposite party has not placed any material to show that it has supplied syllabus and other materials to the complainant well in advance or for a week or monthly time table of SAP basis.  This shows that the opposite party with an intention to collect money from the complainant assured to impart training on SAP basis without syllabus etc., amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

12.      The complainant has produced letter issued by his previous employer T and M Services Consulting Pvt. Ltd., dated 17.02.2017 that he was working with them from 15.04.2015 to 31.07.2017 and he was found sincere and hard working.  Further the complainant has produced pay slip for the month of January, 2017 and according to this he was drawing gross salary of Rs.32,656/- and net salary of Rs.30,834/-.  The complainant with an intention to get knowledge in SAP basis by resigning to his earlier job joined the opposite party by paying Rs.50,000/- as first instalment.  The opposite party has failed to impart SAP basis training properly to the complainant as such he has discontinued the said training within 10 days from the date of joining.  Therefore, the opposite party shall liable to refund Rs.50,000/- in addition to compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and inconvenience suffered and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant is not entitled for loss of pay since he has taken his own decision to resign to his job and joined the OP to get training.  For the above reasons,   we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint filed by Gibson Silvan Castelino is partly allowed directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from 01.02.2017 till realization.
2. Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite party at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 29^th August, 2019)