Before the District CONSUMERS Forum :Kurnool
Present : Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
And
Sri R Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Monday the 12th day of May, 2004
C.D.No.99 /2002
B.Naga Jaya Chandra Reddy,
Son of Late B.V. Subba Reddy,
C/o. Suryanarayana Reddy,
Satram Street,
Allagadda. . . . Complainant represented by his
Counsel Sri Y. Rajasekhara Reddy
-Vs-
1.Pentasoft Technologies Ltd,
Branch Officer: 40/29-11-1,
Besides Sri Rama Chits,
1st Floor, MMM Complex,
Park Road,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party No.1 represented by
is counsel Sri H.Hariharanatha Sarma
2. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd, Soft Towers,
Rail Nilayam Road,
Near Sangeet Thearte, Secunderabad.
. . . Opposite party
3.Penta Soft Technologies Ltd,
Regd Office- Tidel Park, 9th Floot 4,
Canal Bank Road, Taramani, Chennai. . . . Opposite party.
O R D E R
This Consumer dispute case of the complainant is filed under Sec.12 of the C.P.Act seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay him RS/-1,27,100/- towards the fees RS. 40,000/-paid for E-commerce course, RS. 6,500/- as rent paid from 1.2.2001 for 13 months,RS.15,600/- towards boarding charges for 13 months from 1.2.2001,RS.65,000/- as damages at the rate of RS.5,000/- per month for 13 months towards the loss of the source of the employment and interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the claim along with costs and other reliefs which the exigencies of the case demand.
The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant joined on 28.7.2000 E-commerce course of 6 months duration held by the O.P No.1 at Kurnool, lured by its attractive advertisement for bright promising future such as “through tie-ups with number of Corporate Companies, can facilitate the Employment process by linking directly with Companies on the look out for Soft ware talent”, placement assistance, IBM CERTIFIED faculty from Chennai (as per its brochure). The O.P.NO.2 is the Head Office at Secunderabad and the O.P.NO.3 is the Registered Office at Chennai to which the O.P.NO.1 is the Branch at Kurnool and all the opposite parties are the Business partners of IBM at their respective places. But the opposite party has not kept his promise by providing any “placement assistance”, “IBM certified faculty from Chennai” by providing mere faculty from Hyderabad for some modules and for some from Kurnool. The said 6 months course consists of HTML,JAWA-1.2,CGI/PERL, ASB, DHMTL, FRONT PAGE VIJUAL INTER DEV,ADVANCED JAWA,NET WORKING ESSENTIALS,WIN NT ADMINISTRATION,PCP/IP,E-BUSINESS. FUNDATMENTALS, INTERNET BUSINESS SKILLS, FIRE BALL, E-COMMERCE FUNDAMENTALS, NET-COMMERCE and the said course while is required to be completed by the end of the January,2001. The O.P.No.1 in January, 2002 vide its letter dt.23.1.2002 referred to the complainant to the O.P.No.2 as the student of the E-commerce to complete at Hyderabad some modules in Fire Wall and Net Commerce. Thus the opposite parties neither provided quality training nor completed the course properly nor kept up its promises and on the other hand exposed the complainant to ill –treatment and risks of Electric Hazards and also forced the complainant to write examinations without the completion of the course under a promise to complete the same after the examinations and thereby the opposite parties committed deficiency of service in completion of the course as scheduled. The complainant was not only not benefited of the course he joined at the deficient conduct of the opposite parties in importing the required training, but also incurred huge expenditures being driven to Hyderabad for completion of some modules for some period and hence the complainant demanded the opposite parties several times for refund of the fees and incurred expenditure and also vide a legal notice dt.15.2.2002 and the non-responsive deficient conduct of the opposite party to the said demand constrained the complainant to resort to the Forum for seeking the reliefs under the C.P.Act.
In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant while the opposite parties 2&3 remained exparty by their abstinence, the opposite partyNo.1 caused his appearance through his counsel and contested the case by filing its written version denying the complainant’s cause of action and any deficiency of service at its end and thereby any of its liability for the claim of the complainant.
The written version (objection statement ) of the O.P.No.1 even though admit the complainant joining the course with it, but denies of other averments as to non-importing of certain subjects of the course and non providing of the qualitative training and also the allegation of the complainant incurring heavy expenditure. It alleges the suppression of the facts by the complainant with malafide intention to black mail the opposite parties to have monitory un-due advantage as the complainant joined in the course abiding their terms and conditions of student protocol book. It further alleges that infact the complainant was provided IBM certified faculty from Hyderabad under the lectures and guidence of Sri Indra Banu and the concepts of the Fire Wall and Net Dot commerce in the E-commerce course was thaught to the complainant along with his colleagues Sabir Basha, Suhail Afral in the months of the February,2001 for 26 days providing the relevant material also and exams were conducted by the August,2001 after the completion of the course, course certificate was issued in June, 2001 and as the Final certificate is a mere formality and the complainant could pursue without any difficulty for employment opportunity with the help of the course completion certificate the complainant was not put to any inconvenience. It further submits that as the IBM organization is an International one with the International importance having its main office New Jercy in U.S.A and its processing centers at Bangalore and Chennai and being an organization with International importance the scrutiny and the valuation of its examination papers being at various levels with utmost care and caution and the attack on world towers also contributed to the delay if any in issuing Final Certificates. It further alleges that after completion of the course on the request of the complainant himself, he was sent to the Hyderabad Office for the special training and the complainant instead of availing its benefit properly created all kinds of nuisances by his non-co-operative and quarrl some conduct and in the later times with a mischievous intention diverted the students to the other Institutions trained relations with the complainant and made the later to engineer this litigation with the ulterior motives. As such the complainant did not respond to the intimation given by the opposite party to receive the certificate inspite of its ready availability with the opposite parties. It lastly submits as the course was completed long back and the opposite party has rendered the required service in the said regard to the best of its ability and the employment was not assured it alleges no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant and there by seeks the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
In substantiation of the complainant’s case averments while the complainant’s side has relied upon the documentary evidence in Ex.A.1 toEx.A.8 and the interrogatories caused on the opposite parties side and his sworn-affidavit in re-iteration of his case, the opposite parties side has made reliance on the documentary evidence in Ex.B.1 to B.4 and the sworn-affidavit of the opposite party and the third parties in re-iteration of its defence.
Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency of the service of the opposite parties and his entitleness for the releiefs sought?:-
The Ex.A.1 is the letter dt.23.1.2002 of the Penta Soft Kurnool Branch Office (O.P.No.1) addressed to the B. Sreenivas, Business Manager, Penta Soft Technologies Limited, Secunderabad, referring thereby the complainant as e-commerce student to complete few modules in Fire Wall and Net Commerce. It says the complainant as one of its E-commerce student. But as against to it the written version of the opposite party No.1 in the avernments in the para No.5 alleges that on the request of the complainant, subsequent to the completion of the course, he was sent to the Hyderabad Office for the special training. In the absence of any co-gent substance in support of the supra stated contentions of the opposite party and as in the Ex.A.1 the complainant as was said therein as one of its e-commerce student and the purpose of his being sent to the Hyderabad, in the said letter was said for the completion of few modules in Fire Wall and Net Commerce and not as any special trainee, subsequent to the completion of the course, the said statement of the opposite party on this aspects not only remains highly in-consistence ,but also there by un-trust worthy and as consisting of any bonafidies of the opposite party in that regard . Therefore what follows is that the course was not completed within the period as scheduled and hence there appears every bonafidies of the complainant in his hesitation on the said grievance and the deficiency of the service on the side of the opposite party in that regard.
The Ex.A.2 is the bunch of the three photographs with their corresponding negatives, it is said to be the photographs of the advertisement at the O.P.1’s Office at Kurnool. It envisages that it is only the Institute in the entire Rayalaseema providing IBM certificate under the style Penta Soft Technologies Limited offering courses in E-COMMERCE, ADVANCE INTERNET POWER PROGRAMME (AIPP), LINUX , XML, COLD FUSION,PENTA SOFT POWER DIPLOMA,ORACLE 8.0 AND VB 6.0 AND THE ADVANTAGE OF THE IBM CERTIFICATE FOR E-COMMERCE,IBM CERTIFIED FACULTY FROM CHENNAI, ON HAND EXPERIENCE WITH A NET FINITY SURVER, PLACEMENT ASSISTANCE BESIDES TEACHING ALL THE NEEDED FROM IT and hence luring to learn IBM education from the leader Penta Soft Technologies Limited. The perusal of the supra stated Ex.A.2 indicates of the courses with which the O.P.No.1 under takes to provide and of its advantages. In the prospectus brochure of the opposite party No.1 also says that it would teach all needed in courses held by him and the e-com Penta Soft brochure also indicates of the courses it holds as stated supra and the duration of the course as 524 hours either for the part time or the full time and the benefit of the e-commerce as empowers one who has taken training in the said course with acumen to handle business through the world wide web and the specialty of the Penta Soft to import the training in the courses held by it as pioneer in implementing latest Technology and providing training on the latest Pentium machines one each to the student with liberal and sufficient machine time in providing sofisticated training methodologies under experienced well trained and certified faculties and guest lectures from eminent personalities and periodical evaluation of the students and providing well stocked Library with students cell to take care off placements and addressess of various needs of the students and through tie-up with number of Corporates, facilitate the employment process by linking direct with on look out for the soft ware talent and the fact of several thousands of its students getting employment in Major companies like Asia Nova Soft, Singapore, Penta Four Communications, Maysia and the eligibility for undergoing training in the said courses as graduate in the Science, Mathematics, Statistics, Computer Sciences and M.C. As and providing the list of courses in which it is importing training. While such is so with the above the Ex.A.3 a bunch of the 6 receipts envisages the payment of the Registration and the course fees of E-commerce by the complainant to the O.P.No.1 and the Ex.A.4 photo identity card envisages the complainant as student of the e-commerce of the batch No. EM 0007pm016. The facts born in the above said record is not denied by the opposite party’s side. Hence from them it remains clear that the complainant joined the O.P.NO.1 for undergoing training in the e-commerce course paying necessary fees and the importing of the said course by the opposite party for the said fees comes under the service as contemplated under the C.P.Act.
The ExA.5 is the legal notice dt.15.2.2002 of the complainant addressed to the opposite parties 1 to 3 the same grievances such as non-completion of the course as scheduled ,not caring to teach topics like Fire Wall and Net commerce inspite of the repeated requests and at last referring the complainant to Sri B.Srinivas, Busines Manager, Penta Soft Technologies, Secunderabad to complete modules in the Fire Wall and the Net commerce and the later not caring to give any quality t raining and instead humiliating the complainant opening him to the list of Electric Hazards and the O.P.No.1 not responding to the demand of the refund of the Fees in the above circumstances and the inferior quality of the services provided by the opposite party in importing the said course to him and the opposite parties not keeping the promise for the completion of the course within the schedule time and providing ideal faculty from Chennai and instead providing only local faculty for some modules and for some from Hyderabad and holding of the Examination without completing the course and making the complainant for appearing the said examination with a false promise to complete the course after the examination and the keeping the complainant into the darkness of the results and not issuing any certificate of the course undergone and thereby allege the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party claiming the refund of the fees of RS.40,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the joining the course besides to RS.75,000/-as damage ,expenses and the loss of the future prospectus.
The Ex.A.6 while envisages the acknowledgement of the Ex.A.5 notice by the opposite parties 1&3. TheEx.A.7indicates its return as not claimed by the O.P.No.2.
The Ex.B.1 is the reply of the opposite partyNo.1 denying all the material averments of the Ex.A.5 notice of the complainant as false and alleging the completion of the course and the issual of the course completion certificate to the complainant on 29.6.2001 itself.
In the Ex.A.2 photographs as the public advertisement at the opposite party No.1 institute, it says of the advantages of taking said course with it, as it is having IBM certified faculty from Chennai. From the averment of the reply notice from theEx.B.1 as to the interpretation of the said advantage as providing only knowledge imported through IBM certified faculty and not the place from which the faculty is deputed and denying of any assurance to that effect itself corroborates the truth in the complainant’s contention that the O.P.No.1 has not provided the advantage of the IBM faculty, Chennai to him during the training of the course he joined and there by makes out the deficiency of the service of the opposite party to the complainant in that regard.
The brochure of the E-commerce Penta Soft says the duration of the said course is 524 hours is either part time/full time. From the averments of the complaint and the registered notice in the Ex.A.5 and their receipts in the Ex.A.3 the said course in which the complainant was said to have joined commenced 28th July, 2000 and continued till 17.3.2001 i.e for about 8 months and the certificate in Ex.B.3 says their duration of the said course was from 28.7.2001 to 10.3.2001 the said tenure remaining as about 8months from the very material it remains clear the said course was not completed as schedule and the delay was abnormal. The certificate as to the course performance record in the e-commerce level 2 &3 as bears the dates of their examination on 11.3.2001 and 12.3.2001 respectively, the course conduction envisaged the first page of the Ex.B.3 remains some what inconsistence. While such is so with the above, the record of the attendance of the complainant and others shows their attendance with the opposit4e party up to 20.3.2001. Hence from the above there appears high inconsistency as to the factum of the actual conclusion of the course. Further from the contents of the Ex.A.1 letter dt.23.1.2002 wherein the complainant was mentioned as “one e-commerce student “the completion of the said course and holding of the examinations as stated above remains highly suspicious of its bonafidies. Further if the course was completed by 10.3.2001 and the examinations were conducted on 25.2.2001,10.3.2001 and 11.3.2001 as mentioned in the bunch of the certificates of the Ex.B.3 there appears no reason for mentioning the complainant as E-commerce student in Ex.A.1 letter dt.23.1.2002 and also no reason for the certificate in Ex.B.3 to bear its date as 17.5.2002 and for the alleged intimation dt.17.6.2002 in the Ex.B.2 from the opposite party to the complainant to receive the said e-commerce (IBM)certificate. All the above said material indicates in the uni-tone that the opposite parties has conducted the said course not as per the time schedule and on the other hand as they please in releasing the course completion certificates and not keeping up the promise for showing the placements. Hence, there appears every deficiency of services from the opposite parties side towards the complainant right from the beginning of the course till the completion of the course and in holding the examination and issual of the course certificate.
The opposite parties side except alleging the defaultive and non-co-operative conduct of the complainant in attending and completing the said course and filing the Ex.B.4 did not substantiate their bonafidies and malafides of the complainant by substantiating the same by any accepting the corroborative material.
Hence, in the circumstances discussed above as there is clear deficiency of service of the opposite parties in completing the course as scheduled and in importing qualitative training and issuing the course certificate apart from not keeping up its promise as to showing of the placements to the complainant who has undergone the said course. The complainant is remaining entitled to the compensation for the suffering damage and mental agony he faced at the deficient conduct and the deficiency of the services of the opposite parties as the complainant as student is Consumer and the damages suffered at the deficiency of the service of the opposite party and the loss suffered by the complainant is indeminfiable as per the decision of Jarkand State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi in Archana Shaw V/S Bagal Poor Tilak Manji University and others reported in 2003 (3)CPR 296 and the decision of the Maharastra State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Mumbai in the Manager Study Circle Carrier Development Institute V/S Syed Juva Meer Usman and others reported in 2003(3)CPR 241. In the light of the above position of the Law the decisions reported by the opposite parties side reported in 2000(1) ALD (CONS) page 53 and 2002 (2) CPR.84 has little relevancy for its appreciation in this case.
Therefore, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay to the complainant an amount of RS.25, 000/- with 9% interest from the date of the complaint as compensation for damage and the mental agony suffered by the complainant at the deficient conduct and deficiency of services of opposite party in holding the said course and RS.5,000/- as costs within a month from the date of the receipt of this order.
Dictated to the stenographer typed to the dictation, corrected by us, pronounced in the Open Court, this the 12th day of May, 2004.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
