DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.589/2008
Sh. Satyendra Singh
C-81, Vivek Vihar,
New Delhi ….Complainant
Versus
STC Third Eye Technology India (P) Ltd.
(through its CEO)
E-14, 4th Floor,
South Extension-Part-II,
New Delhi-110049 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 12.09.2008 Date of Order : 21.12.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Case of the Complainant, in nutshell, is that the complainant was looking for an institute for providing practical Certified Software Testing Professional course and he came to know about the institution of OP and on enquiry the complainant was informed by the staff of the OP that entire fee for the practical training rendered by the OP would be Rs.75,000/- out of which Rs.50,000/- was refundable after 18 months of joining the course and the OP will retain the rest of the amount of Rs.25,000/- as training fees. OP also promised to pay a minimal amount to the complainant during his training period as trainee fee as follows:
“ (i) 2nd – 12th Months @ Rs.6,000/- p.m.
(b) 13th – 18th Months @ Rs.12,000/- p.m.
(c) 19th – to 24th Months @ Rs.18,000/- p.m.”
It was further stated that the OP would provide the opportunity of actual project work and organize special interviews for the complainant to get better job opportunities. Accordingly, the complainant paid the entire amount of Rs.75,000/- vide receipt dated 04.03.08. It is submitted that subsequently the complainant received a letter (offer letter) dated 05.03.2008 from OP wherein the complainant was offered a post of Test-Engineer-Trainee at Delhi and it was also stated that the complainant would be on probation for a period of 30 days from the date of joining which was contrary to the representation made to the complainant and as such the complainant visited the office of OP and it was made clear that the complainant had taken admission in OP organization for the practical training and accordingly paid the fee for the same and he was not supposed to be treated as employee of OP and the staff of OP again re-assured earlier promises made to the complainant and further requested to sign letter stating that the letter was formal in nature and the complainant should not worry about the same and ultimately the complainant signed the letter. It is submitted that the representations made by the OP proved to be false as the complainant joined OP with sole objective to have the project work in the esteem organization but, on the other hand, the OP only provided to do the Demo Project work instead of actual project work as promised by the OP. It is submitted that the complainant was asked to submit the relevant papers for opening the PF account and subsequently OP deducted the PF contribution from the payment made to the complainant but the OP had failed to provide the details of PF account. It is submitted that around one year passed but the complainant did not provide any opportunity to do an actual project work and the purpose of taking such a course was frustrated and thus the complainant asked the OP to return the consideration and other dues like deduced amount of PF etc but the OP did not do so. Hence, pleading unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint for the following directions:
- direct the OP to refund the consideration of Rs.75,000/- taken from the complainant as consideration for training alongwith interest @ 18% and/or;
- direct the OP to refund to the complainant Rs.396/- p.m. deducted towards PF alongwith interest as per prevailing PF rate and/or;
- direct the OP to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant by the OP.
OP in its written statement has inter-alia stated that the work of performance of the complainant with the OP was not upto the mark and he was average and he was warned to improve his work performance but he miserably failed. It is submitted that the complainant was directed to report on 15.09.09 but the complainant declined to report for the same for his medical problem and thereafter neither reported for duty nor reported to Chennai office as directed to him. It is stated that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as the Annexure C-2 filed by the complainant itself demonstrates that there was an employment contract dated 05.03.2008 between the OP and the complainant and he was offered to work as Test Engineer-Trainee at OP company. The relevant clause of the terms and conditions (Annexure-A) reads as under:-
“1. Employee shall pay Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) as Retention Deposit. On successful 18 months continuous service with the Employer, the Retention Deposit amount of Rs.50,000/- only will be refunded at the end of 18th month.”
“6. Employee will be governed by the service rules of Employer as may be applicable to you from time to time."
It is further submitted that the complainant accepted the offer letter after going through all the contents and terms and conditions of the same and thus he made no complaint against the said offer letter and now in order to cover up his own wrongs the complainant is taking a false plea and is attempting to mislead the Forum by making wrong and incorrect statements. The complainant cannot be allowed to take the advantage of his own wrongs. It is submitted that thereafter in violation of the employment contract the complainant stopped attending the OP and violated the terms and conditions of the same. Due to illegal acts and conducts of the complainant the OP suffered huge losses and they are going to file separate proceedings against the complainant for recovery of damages in the competent court of law. It is submitted that the complainant of his own accord opted not to join the OP and abandoned his job and now by levelling baseless, false and vexatious allegations he is attempting to extract some unwarranted money from the OP. The OP never refused the complainant to perform his usual work as per the contractual agreement arrived between the parties. It is specifically denied that the OP has indulged in unfair trade practice or extracted the hard earned money of the complainant on false pretext. According to the OP, there was a relationship of employer and employee between the parties. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complaint of the complainant is without any cause of action. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder. In reply to P.O. No.8 it is inter-alia stated as under:-
“…It is submitted that taking account of the facts that the O.P. no.2 is providing the service in lieu of consideration, timing of the said practical course i.e. 8.30 am to 1.30 pm and organizing the interview for the student, clearly proof that the relationship between the Complainant and the Ops was a consumer and the service provider. It is submitted that the Ops with ill motive and malafide intention turned the relationship of the Complainant and the same has employer – employ relationship which shows the unfair trade practice adopted by the Op….”
In reply to para 3I on merits it is inter-alia stated as hereunder:-
“…It is further pertinent to mention here that one student namely Minakshi Kalra who joined the Bangalore Centre got refund Rs.50,000/- after filing the FIR by the police against the OPs. It is further submitted that complainant has also additional remedy to the criminal complain for cheating, misappropriation alongwith other applicable provisions of IPC against the OPs, their director and its employee.”
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. J. Saravanan, Director has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OPs.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the complainant.
No one has appeared on behalf of the parties to address oral arguments.
We have gone through the file very carefully.
There is no evidence except the bare averments made in the complaint and in the affidavit that the Complainant had infact taken admission in OP institute for taking practical training or that he was infact forced to sign the appointment letter/service contract. Ex. CW/2 (Annexure R-1) is the copy of offer of appointment sent by the OP to the Complainant. The same is dated 05.03.08 and vide this letter the Complainant was asked to join his duty as Test Engineer – Trainee w.e.f. 05.03.08. The same has been admittedly signed by the Complainant. Therefore, we are not inclined to believe that the Complainant had been forced to sign the employment contract with OP.
According to the Complainant, as per the employment contract during the training period he was to be paid the trainee fee of Rs.6000/- per month for 2nd to 12 months, Rs.12,000/- per month for 13th to 18th months and Rs.18,000/- per month from 19th to 24 months. Therefore, this fact also fortifies our belief that the Complainant had infact accepted the employment offer from OP on finding that he would be paid handsome amount during the period of his training.
Now, according to the complainant, the OP had to refund Rs.50,000/- after 18 months of joining of the course and was to retain the amount of Rs.25,000/- as training fee. On the other hand, the OP has simply denied this fact. Let us presume that the version made by the complainant in this regard is true. However, the fact remains the same that the Complainant had accepted the offer of OP to join the OP as Test Engineer – Trainee after depositing the amount of Rs.75,000/-. As per the employment letter Ex. CW/2 (Annexure R-1) the salary to be paid to the Complainant was inclusive of 1.75% ESIC on gross pay and 12% of PF on basic pay between 1-30 months. Now the complainant is estopped from pleading that the deduction of the PF contribution from his salary was wrong. The Complainant has filed the copy of an e-mail dated 28.03.08 1:22 p.m. as Annexure CW/5 in which all members of STC Testing Trainees, Delhi (time 8.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m.) had complained against the behaviour and attitude of their current Corporate Trainer. This document clearly proves that the Complainant had infact been working as an employee with OP No.2 on 28.03.08. OP has stated that the complainant was directed to report on 15.09.09 but he declined to report for the same for his medical problem and thereafter he neither reported for duty nor reported to Chennai office as directed. It stands proved on the record there was infact a “relationship of employer and employee” between the OP and the complainant. Copy of letter dated 18.07.2008 sent by the complainant to the OP is Annexure R-4 in which the complainant has claimed himself to be “working” with OP and has inter alia stated that “I am getting training as per company’ standards and I am happy with the training as well.” It shows that the complainant was even otherwise with his training being given to him by the OP.
Therefore, we do not feel any hesitation in saying that the Complainant has distorted the facts and has filed the present complaint based on untrue facts.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 21.12.2017.
