BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MANGALORE
Dated this the 9th August 2010
COMPLAINT NO.77/2010
(Admitted on 09.03.2010)
PRESENT: 1. Smt. Asha Shetty, President
2.Smt.Lavanya M. Rai, Member
BETWEEN:
Mrs. Shibani Trikannad,
Wo. Prasan Trikannad,
Aged about 34 years,
Residing at Kankanady,
Mangalore. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Mrs. Suma R. Nayak).
VERSUS
MS.Mastech India Pvt. Ltd.,
Centre to Training and Placement,
Door No.16 11672 3,
Anugraha, Church Compound,
Near Jyothi Circle, Balmatta Road,
Mangalore 1.
Rep. by its Managing Director. ……. OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri.M. Rajesh Kudva).
***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.
The Complainant submits that, the Opposite Party herein is running a training and placement centre for medical transcription and other courses in Mangalore. The Opposite Party vide advertisements published in various newspapers, handbills, brochures, lures customers to join their institute by guaranteeing 100% job guarantee work at the end of their 4 months training period. The Opposite Party also guarantees their customers/ trainees that they can earn Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month from home. The Complainant lured by such advertisement, joined the Opposite Party institute for medical transcription course in the month of June 2009.
It is stated that, at the time of joining the course the Complainant agreed to pay Rs.20,000/- for the entire 4 months training programme. During the training period she has paid the entire fees. The Opposite Party promised that they would provide all study materials, excellent, qualified tutors will be handling the subjects, they will be conducting practical and theory classes so as to enable her to get placement and to facilitate her to earn a minimum of Rs.10,000/- per month. It is stated that, within few days of joining the course she found that, all the promises made by the Opposite Party were false and the Opposite Party were misrepresenting and were publishing false advertisements. The allegation of the Complainant herein is that, there is no timing for students/trainees to attend the classes or even to attend practical training. There is absolutely no discipline i.e., one can walk-in and walk-out of the training centre at their whims and fancies. There were no proper P.C’s, no qualified teachers to train the students. The one to one P.C. package which the Opposite Party had promised was not provided. So also during power cuts all the PC’s had to be shut down since no adequate generator backing was provided. After a job was completed there was no tutor to even check and edit the work completed by a trainee. It is stated that, the Opposite Party collected fees upto Rs.20,000/- from some students, Rs.15,000/- from some and Rs.10,000/- from some. The Opposite Party has permitted the students who have paid only part fees to write the exam and also given completion certificate, in some cases without writing the exam completion certificate was given to the student. It is stated that, the Opposite Party charged exorbitant fees in comparison to other medical transcription courses without providing basic quality education.
It is further alleged that, the Complainant faced the shock when on 15.12.2009 she was given an appointment letter stating that from the very same day she will be appointed as medical transcriptionist at the Opposite Party’s institute but even after lapse of a week no work was assigned to her. On enquiry it is stated by the Opposite Party that currently there was no files assigned from the Company and there was no work. It is stated that, the Opposite Party is practicing unfair trade practice by advertising about 100% job guarantee and earn Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month and contended that the Opposite Party Institution committed gross deficiency of service, unfair trade practice and hence the above complaint is filed by the Complainant before this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party to refund the course fee of Rs.20,000/- and also claimed Rs.70,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD. Opposite Party appeared through their counsel filed version admitted that, it is running a training and placement centre for medical transcription and other course in Mangalore. It is also admitted that, they have made vide advertisements published in various newspapers, handbills, brochures. It is also admitted that, the Opposite Party guarantees their customers/trainees that they can earn Rs.10,000 to Rs.25,000/- per month from home but it is denied that the Complainant lured by such advertisement and joined the Opposite Party institute for medical transcription course on June 2009 as alleged in the complaint. It is admitted that, at the time of joining the course the Complainant has paid Rs.20,000/- for the entire training programme. But it is denied that the Opposite Party institution misrepresenting or made false advertisements etc. etc.
The Opposite Party submitted that, the Opposite Party is dealing with medical transcription training and placement and they invested huge amount as a capital investment in terms of computers, head sets, foot pedal and other computer softwares. And also lot of money spent on paper advertisement, faculty fees, rent, electricity, telephone charges etc. and it is stated that after the training completion further on the job training was provided for a period of one/two months, free training provided to the candidates depending on their skill. It is stated that, after successful completion of 4 months training, the candidate has to acquire skills and proficiency and practice more wave files to get required proficiency. Still if candidates feel to know anything more, they can bring it to the notice of the management. Only after successful completion of 6 months training and OJT and regular test and periodicals/exams were conducted and then only successful candidates issued with certificates along with 100% job placement offer letters. If the candidate is upto the mark then only the Opposite Party is open to give the work as home based medical transcription online count basis and contended that there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
4. In support of the complaint, Mrs.Shibani Trikannada (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and got marked Ex C1 to C6 as listed in the annexure. Opposite Party neither filed counter affidavit nor produced any documents. The Complainant produced notes of arguments along with citation.
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon'ble Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Negative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
Reasons
5. Point No. (i) to (iii):
In the instant case, the Complainant has come across with the advertisement published in various newspapers, handbills, brochures joined the Opposite Party institution by guaranteeing 100% job at the end of their 4 months medical transcription training course. The Complainant thereby paid Rs.20,000/- for the 4 months training programme of medical transcription advertised by the Opposite Party institution. And she has deposed before this Forum stating that, after joining the Opposite Party institution she found that there was no timing for students/trainees to attend classes or even to attend practical training. There is absolutely no discipline i.e., one can walk-in and walk-out of the training centre at their whims and fancies. There is no proper PC’s, no qualified teachers to train the students. The one to one P.C. package which the Opposite Party had promised was not provided, so also during power cuts all the P.C.s had to be shut down since no adequate generator backing was provided. After a job was completed there was no tutor to even check and edit the work completed by a trainee. All the promises made by the Opposite Party that the institution would provide all the study materials, excellent and qualified tutors for handling the subjects, conducting practical and theory classes, so as to enable the Complainants to get placement and to facilitate them to earn a minimum Rs.10,000/- per month, the Opposite Party misrepresented and made a false advertisement to lure the Complainants and came up with this complaint.
However, in order to prove the above deficiencies, the Complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit and produced certain documents i.e., Ex C1 to C6.
On careful scrutiny of the documents produced by the Complainant reveals that, on 09.06.2009 the Complainant paid Rs.5,000/-, on 21.07.2009 paid Rs.5,000/-, on 10.08.2009 paid Rs.5,000/- and on 10.09.2009 paid another Rs.5,000/- to the Opposite Party institution. The Ex C2 is the course completion certificate reveals that the Complainant was completed medical transcription course and her performance during the course was shown as “Excellent”. The above said certificate was issued on 08.12.2009. Ex C3 is the letter written by the Opposite Party institution to the Complainant reveals that, the Complainant has been appointed as a medical transcriptionist at Opposite Party institution as an work contract employee with effect from 15.12.2009 and further she was informed by the Opposite Party institution that, MT will be paid as per the line count basis (65 characters includes one line and character without space/65 characters = is line count) and informed that the Complainant will be paid 40 paise per line for non-mailable document and 50 paise per line for mailable documents. And further it has informed that, this will be on ‘no work no wage basis’. Ex C4 is the brochure of the Opposite Party institution and Ex C5 is the advertisement in Udayavani Daily newspaper and Ex C6 is the website extract showing the infrastructure and other facilities.
On careful scrutiny of the above documents produced by the Complainant herein reveals that, the Complainant opted the above course and paid a fee of Rs.20,000/- (as per Ex C1) to the Opposite Party Institution and the Opposite Party institution after conducting the course issued a course completion certificate by stating that the Complainant’s performance during the course was excellent, the same has been issued on 08.12.2009 i.e., Ex C2. And further the appointment letter i.e., Ex C3 issued by the Opposite Party i.e., Mastech India Pvt. Limited specifically stated that, the appointment as a medical transcriptionist at Mastech India as a work contract employee not as an permanent employee of the Opposite Party. The above appointment letter categorically stated that, the employment offered by the Opposite Party is a work contract basis. Under that circumstances, the Complainant cannot compel the Opposite Party institution to provide the work as per her expectation. When it has been categorically stated that, the work allotted by the Opposite Party institution is a contract basis, it mean that whenever the work is available the Opposite Party will provide work to the Complainant. Apart from that, we have observed that, the completion certificate issued by the Opposite Party it has been categorically stated that, she has completed her course and issued a certificate. Once the course is completed and the certificate issued by the Opposite Party institution, it clearly reveals that, the Complainant availed the service of the Opposite Party institution, the Opposite Party in turn issued the completion certificate by stating that the performance during the course was excellent. When that being the case, the grievances put forwarded by the Complainant does not hold good after obtaining the completion certificate i.e., Ex C2. If the matter is disputed during the pendency of the course then it would have been appreciated by this Forum. But the documents produced by the Complainant reveals that, she approached this Forum after completion of the course and so much so after obtaining the completion certificate, now came up with a grievance stating that the Opposite Party committed deficiency as there was no timing for the students to attend the class or there is no discipline or no proper P.C’s provided, no qualified teachers, no study materials etc. etc. cannot be considered at this stage.
We find that, the Complainant ought to have approached the Forum at the earliest, we could say during the period of medical transcription training. When the certificate is issued by the Opposite Party that she is excellent, it is open to the Complainant to show her skill and proficiency in her job. Just because the Opposite Party not allotted the work one cannot allege that the Opposite Party is deficient in service. The advertisement given by the Opposite Party clearly shows that, the person one who takes the medical transcription course and after completion they can earn around Rs.10,000/- to 25,000/- per month, it does not mean that the Opposite Party promised to provide a job to the Complainant. If the Complainant is efficient and has a skill to do the medical transcription work then definitely she can approach any institution like Opposite Party for the job.
No doubt, in the given case, the Advocate Commissioner was appointed and the Opposite Party also not contested the case, just because the Opposite Party not contested the case it does not mean that whatever the grievances put forwarded by the Complainant is genuine. It is a settled position of law that, whenever the Complainant files a complaint under deficiency of service the burden lies upon the Complainant to prove that there is a deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. In the instant case, after completing the course and holding the completion certificate in her hand, the efficiency of the Complainant under this complaint cannot be challenged as against the Opposite Party stating that during the course of medical transcription training the Opposite Party has committed deficiency or even after completion of the course while providing job on contract committed deficiency.
In view of the above said discussion, we hold that the complaint filed by the Complainant has no basis and deserves to be dismissed. No order as to costs.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.
(Page No.1 to 11 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 9th day of August 2010.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Mrs.Shibani Trikannad – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – 09.06.2007, 21.07.2009, 10.08.2009 & 10.09.2009: Receipts for payment of Fees for Rs.20,000/- (4 in numbers).
Ex C2 – 08.12.2009: Completion of course certificate.
Ex C3 – 15.12.2009: Appointment letter issued by the Opposite Party.
Ex C4 – : Brochure.
Ex C5 – 25.01.2010: Paper cuttings of Udayavani Daily Newspaper.
Ex C6 - : Website extract.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1 – Nil.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:
- Nil -
Dated:09.08.2010 PRESIDENT
