MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.       This is an appeal filed by the complainant received by transfer from Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under the orders of Hon’ble National Commission against order dated 28.3.2002 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 440 of 2001.

2.       The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Consumer Forum.

3.       Briefly stated the facts of the case are that in the month of July, 1999 the complainant took admission in the computer center of OP No.1 for the course of Post Graduate Diploma in client/server technology and paid Rs.21,205/- on the intervening period. The said course was to be completed upto February, 2000 but the OP No.1 did not provide any facility and there was not having sufficient infrastructure and the complainant could not get the proper guidance/lectures. The complainant took break for 3 months and in the meantime OP No.1 had sold the institution to OP No.2. The OP No.1 had then assured all the students that they should complete the course without any fear because all the facilities were to be provided by OP No.2 as all the liabilities and assets have been taken over by OP No.2 and after that OP No.2 would be liable for providing the facilities and infrastructure for completing the course. The OP No.2 did not provide any facility to the complainant for completing the said course and due to the negligent attitude of the OP No.2, the complainant had suffered humiliation and mental agony. Hence, the complaint was filed.

4.       Reply was filed by OP No.1 in which, OP No.1 was pleaded that complaint was false and frivolous. The OP No.1 had transferred all the assets and responsibilities to OP No.2 w.e.f. 1.3.2001 and the OP No.1 was not liable for any deficiency in service because the course of complainant was not completed at the time of transfer of the assets and liabilities. The OP No.1 controverted the allegations of the complainant and pleaded that the OP No.1 had provided sufficient facilities and the trained and approved teaching staff for completing the course.

5.       In the reply filed by OP No.2 in which it was pleaded that the dispute was between the complainant and OP No.1 and the complaint did not relate to the OP No.2. It has been admitted by OP No.1 that the OP No.1 had sold the institute to OP No.2 on 5.3.2001 and pleaded that complainant had completed the course and awarded the certificate for having completed the course and the complainant had also received pass certificate. Hence, the OPs pleaded for dismissal of the complaint. 

6.       The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions.

7.       The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP No.2 to refund the deposited fees of Rs.21,205/- along with interest @ 12% from the date of deposit till realization along with costs of Rs.500/-. The learned District Forum in its order mentioned that there would be no liability of OP No.1. This order was directed to be complied with by OP No.2 within 30 days, failing which action under Section 27 of CPA would be taken.

8.          Aggrieved by the order of learned District Forum, the present appeal has been filed by OP No.2 i.e. STG Centre.

9.       In the appeal, the appellant has submitted that it is the admitted case of the respondents that the complainant took admission for course with OP No.1, which was to be completed in the month of March, 2001 and the same was completed on 10.2.2001 and the respondent received the pass certificate to this regard. In the meantime appellant has purchased the computer center on 5.4.2001 and prior to that complainant has completed his course and as such there was no concern with the appellant in any manner. The learned District Forum has erred in law and facts and has misread and misinterpreted the oral and documentary evidence available on record. The learned District Forum has wrongly held that the appellant is liable to refund the fee whereas complainant claimed the deficiency prior to his purchase. It has been submitted by the appellant that the learned District Forum has also overlooked the fact and law that no fee was received by the appellant and complainant has not hired any services from the appellant and as such complainant has no cause of action against the appellant. There was no obligation on the part of appellant to complete the course of the students of OP No.1. Hence, the appellant is not liable to refund the amount. It has further submitted that the course was started in July, 1999 and completed on 10.2.2001 and the complaint was filed on 3.8.2001 and the appellant purchased the computer center on 5.4.2001. Hence, the appellant is not maintainable for the reason that the complainant has claimed the compensation for deficiency in service for the period prior to 5.4.2001. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum may kindly be dismissed with cost.

10.     We have heard Sh.Amandeep Singh, Advocate for the appellant and Sh.Anil Ghangas, Advocate for respondent No.1/complainant and carefully gone through the file. The main point for consideration before is whether non provision of facilities tentamounts to deficiency in service on the part of appellant.

11.   After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.1 and perusal of the record, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant took admission for the Post Graduate Diploma in the computer center of OP No.1 and has paid a fee of Rs.21,205/- to OP No.1. A perusal of the file shows that during the continuation of the course, OP No.1 had sold the said institution to OP No.2. The above said institution has been transferred in the name of OP No.2 with all the assets and liabilities. Hence, OP No.2 steps into the shoes of OP No.1. A copy of the agreement regarding transfer of assets and liabilities to the OP No.2 has also been placed on file and therefore, the OP No.2 is liable for all the acts of OP No.1 as the complainant has alleged that during the course of completion of the course, neither the sufficient facilities were provided nor trained and approved teaching staff was appointed by the OPs. With these facts and observations, we are of the view that OP No.2 is liable for all the acts done by OP No.1. As the OPs No.1 and 2 failed to prove and have not produced any material fact on file from which it would be concluded that all sufficient facilities and infrastructure were provided by the OPs. Hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and therefore, OP No.2 is liable to refund the deposited fee of Rs.21,205/-. Under these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned District Forum is just, proper and quite reasonable. We uphold the order of the learned District Forum and dismiss the appeal accordingly with no order as to costs.

12.        Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

Pronounced.

10^th March, 2010.