BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Arvind Kaur w/o Sh.Raj Kumar r/o H.No.2050, Sector 66, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Pb.).

….…Complainant

                V E R S U S

1.  Swami Vivekanand University of Merchand Navy (now Merchant Navy Officer Academy), SCO 323-324, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh, through its Director Jaspreet Kaur.

2.  Sunil Kumar, Director, Swami Vivekanand University of Merchand Navy (now Merchant Navy Officer Academy), SCO 323-324, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh.

3.  Charanjeet Singh Shaheed, Administrator, Swami Vivekanand University of Merchand Navy (now Merchant Navy Officer Academy), SCO 323-324, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh.

                    ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL,               PRESIDENT

SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL,     MEMBER

        DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER

Argued by:   Sh. Rajeev Anand, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh.Ranjan Lohan, Counsel for OPs-1 & 2.

None for OP-3.

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

        Brief facts of the case are that, on being allured by the advertisement regarding Deck Cadet Course (Pre Sea Training) published by OPs, the complainant approached them on 02.07.2009 for getting his son-Mohit Arora admitted in the said Course. The OPs informed the complainant that they are offering said course, culminating into license for Continue Discharge Certificate, upon which placement of the candidate would be made on the Ship.  The complainant was required to deposit Rs.3,15,000/-, out of which Rs.1,55,000/- was for Pre Sea Training and an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- was to be deposited before start of Continue Discharge Certificate Course.  It is averred that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 2.7.2009 and thereafter Rs.40,000/- on 5.9.2009 and the balance towards the initial payment was paid through Cheque No.39334 of Rs.25,000/- and Cheque No.393335 of Rs.50,000/-. It is also averred that by the Receipt dated 24.11.2009, a total fee of Rs.1,55,000/- for Pre Sea Training was paid. The copies of the receipts have been annexed as Annexure C-1.

        It is further averred that the son of complainant was issued Admission Letter /Selection Letter by the OPs along with training fee structure, vide letter dated 31.07.09 (Ann.C-2 Page-12) and also an affidavit dated 22.8.2009 (Ann.C-2) stating that the required fee of Rs.3,15,000/- is taken for two stages of training for the award of Deck Cadet Licence by Panama Authority. It is stated that he son of the complainant was issued various certificates regarding the training provided by OPs in respect of Pre Sea Training.  The copies of the Certificates have been annexed as Ann.C-3. It is also stated that after the completion of Pre Sea Training, the next stage was regarding Onboard Training, which was to commence from 04.11.09, but the same was not started. Accordingly, the complainant through her husband gave letter dated 29.01.2010 (Ann.C-4). In response to it, the OPs asked the complainant’s son to deposit the remaining fee of Rs.1,60,000/-. The complainant alleged that her son was taken to Bangkok (Thailand) on 12.03.2010 on the assurance that Continue Discharge Certificate would be issued there.  Before departing, a sum of Rs.1.60 lacs was also taken by the OPs. According to the complainant, her son was issued certificate to work Onboard of Panamanian Ship for a period of three months i.e. 16.02.2010 to 15.05.2010 (Annexure C-5) and thereafter, received letter dated 22.04.2010 (Annexure C-6) through OPs from one Hailong Shipping and Investment Development J.S.Co., Vietnam for OK to Onboard Training stating from 03.05.2010. According to the complainant, many commitments were made regarding Continue Discharge Certificate and License to Board, but no worthwhile development took place and her son has to stay at Bangkok. Thereafter, he was taken to Cambodia on 14.04.2010. The complainant alleged that her son has to stay at Cambodia for one month and returned back on expiry of his visa. According to the complainant, the Certificates issued by the OPs are fake, they have no recognition for imparting said training and have no authority to issue said certificates. Therefore, the complainant requested the OPs to refund the complete fee amount of Rs.3,15,000/-, deposited with them, but to no effect Hence, this complaint.

 2]     OPs NO.1 & 2 filed written statement and denied the allegations of the complainant. It is admitted that the complainant has deposited Rs.1,55,000/- vide receipts (Annexure D-1 to D-4).  It has been pleaded that on completion of the Pre Sea Training Course, requisite certificates were issued to the candidate. Thereafter, they provided Certificate (Annexure C-5) and letter (Annexure C-6) to the candidate for joining “Onboard Training”, without any delay.  It has been pleaded that the complainant has failed to deposit Rs.1,60,000/- for Onboard Training of the candidate and only Rs.1,47,200/- was paid on 15.03.2010 (Ann.D-5), that too after completion of the Training and issuance of Transitory Certificate (Annexure C-5) in February, 2010. It has been pleaded that letter (Annexure C-6) was issued to the candidate for completing the Onboard Training and to join the vessel in time.  It has further been pleaded that the complainant’s son returned to India without consulting OPs and failed to reach the company’s office by the stipulated date i.e. 12.05.2010. It is asserted that OP Institute is duly recognized Institute and the certificate issued by them are genuine.  The authorization Certificate, issued to OP by Competent Authority, is annexed as Ann.D-6. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3]      OP-3 filed separate written statement and pleaded that the complainant availed the services of OPs No.1 & 2 and no averments regarding deficiency in service has been made against him. It has been contended that he has no concern with any official of OP-1 Institute, at any stage. All the allegations made in the complaint have been denied. Pleading no deficiency in service on his part, OP-3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record along with written arguments. 

6]        The dispute between the parties, in this complaint, is that the assurance of the OPs that the Deck Cadet Course, would culminate into licence for Continue Discharge Certificate, upon which placement of the complainant’s son/candidate would be made on Ship. The complainant has duly deposited Rs.1,55,000/- with the OPs for Pre Sea Training and remaining amount of Rs.1,60,000/- was to be deposited before Continue Discharge Certificate. Accordingly, an Admission Letter/Selection Letter (Ann.C-2, Page-12) was issued to the candidate. The complainant further alleged that after completing the Pre Sea Training, her son was to complete Onboard Training, which was to commence from 04.11.2009, but no such training was started and instead, was asked to deposit the remaining fee.  The matter did not end her. The complainant’s son, as alleged by the complainant, was taken to Bangkok (Thailand) on the assurance that Continue Discharge Certificate, would be issued from that place and before departing, a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- was also taken by the OPs. 

7]      Inspite of the assurance/commitment made by the OPs regarding Continue Discharge Certificate, nothing took place in reality, rather her son returned to India, after his Visa expired, after staying for one month in Cambodia. 

8]      Even the complainant hold suspiciousness about the authenticity of the Certificate issued by the OPs, as they have no authority to issue such certificate.  Therefore, the complainant requested the OPs to refund the complete fee amount of Rs.3,15,000/-. 

9]      On the contrary, OPs No.1 & 2, in their written statement, has asserted that the Pre Sea Training Course Certificate (Ann.C-5) as well as the letter (Ann.C-6) for “Onboard Training” was issued to the son of the complainant, without any delay.  Thereupon, it was the complainant, who failed to deposit the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- for Onboard Training.  The only amount, which was deposited by the complainant, was Rs.1,47,200/- (Ann.D-5), that too after completion of training and issuance of Transitory Certificate.  The Ops averred that it was on the part of her son to complete the Onboard Training and to join the Vessel in time, whereas he returned to India without consulting OPs and failed to reach Company’s Office by stipulated date i.e. 12.5.2010.

10]     On the other hand, OP-3 in their separate written statement pleaded that the complainant has availed the services of OPs No.1 & 2.  There is neither any averment regarding deficiency in service on his part nor he has any concern with OP-1 & 2, at any stage.

11]     The main grouse of the complainant is that false promises and inducement of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice as they did not provide any services/training as was promised; rather huge amount as consideration was charged, which further added to grave deficiency in service on their part. The complainant contended that there was loss of one valuable year of the career of her son, which cannot be made good of at any cost or compensated.

12]     The OPs alleged that copies of receipts, annexed as Ann.D-1 to D-4, clearly indicates that full fee was not paid within the stipulated period, whereas the complete  break-up of fee particulars, was known to the complainant, as it was mentioned in the admission letters Ann.C-2 & C-3 placed by the complainant herself.  Even then, the requisite certificate, after completion of “Pre Sea Training” (Ann.C-5) was issued to the candidate. Therefore, after completion of candidate’s training, certificates were duly issued.  Accordingly, it is the candidate, who initially defaulted in payment of the fee, as stipulated and then he did not comply with the required training schedule.  Therefore, the negligence was on his part; whereas he is wrongly alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs and seeking refund of the entire fee amount, which is completely baseless.

13]     Now in order to clinch the matter, reliance has been placed on document’ such as Annexure C-7 is the copy of affidavit executed and duly singed by Prof.Sunil S/o Sh.Dr.P.Dayal (OP No.2), whereby he had promised to refund the amount of candidates including complainant’ son-Mohit Arora and issued cheque in their favour. The relevant extract of said affidavit is reproduced as under:-

“Whereas I promised the following parents to get their wards commissioned/employed in the merchant nevy.  That I took them to Thailand and Cambodia from 12 march 10 to 14 May, 2010.  But I could not get them employed in Merchant Navy and as well as cruise liners.  Now I willingly issued the following Cheque as security for the money I have taken from them:-

1….

2.  Mohit Arora S/o Sh.Raj Kumar #2050 Sector 66 Mohlai. Cheque No.000024, 000031, Dated 9/6/10 Rs.3,15000/-, 18,585/-.”

14]     This document/evidence Ann.C-7 produced/placed on record by the complainant has neither been controverted nor rebutted by the OPs, which admittedly, clearly & apparently proves that the OPs No.1 & 2 were deficient in rendering proper services and also indulged into unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. 

15]     In view of the foregoing, after taking into consideration the pleadings as well as evidence led by the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs No.1 & 2 were deficient in providing proper services to the complainant.  The present complaint has lot of merit, weight and substance. The same is accordingly allowed. The OPs No.1 & 2 are jointly & severally directed to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.3,15,000/-. The OP is also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, apart from Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.

16]     However, the complaint qua OP-3 stands dismissed and exonerated from any deficiency in service on its part.

17]     This order be complied with by the OPs No.1 & 2, jointly & severally, within one month, from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they would be liable to pay the above awarded amount, alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 06.08.2010, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant, besides paying the litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

        Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.