Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.3.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint and directed the OP(now appellant) to refund the fee of Rs.49,950/- to the Complainant (now respondent) with a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and loss suffered by him (complainant) due to deficiency, in service, and unfair trade practice on its (OP) part and Rs.2,500/- as litigation expenses. It was also directed that if the aforesaid amounts were not paid, to the complainant, within a period of thirty days, from the receipt of a copy of the order, it shall be liable to pay the same along with penal interest @ 12% per annum with effect from the date of deposit of the amount of Rs.49,950/- with the OP and on the amount of Rs.50,000/- with effect from the date of order i.e. 15.3.2010 till its actual payment. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant got himself registered with the OP, on 10.2.2008, and applied for programme foundation plus specialization and paid full fee Rs.49,950/-. It was stated that, in the brochure, the OP had assured of 99% job successful rates, after the completion of the said course. The complainant attended the classes regularly, completed the course, and received the certificate Annexure C-4. Thereafter, the complainant visited the OP, to get a job, or placement, but no placement was done and instead it flatly refused to do so. It was further stated that the complainant was shocked, when he came to know that the OP had nothing to do with the policies of the Global Tesol College, Canada, though at the time of admission, he was told that it (OP) was a part of Tesol Global College, Canada. The complainant sent many e-mails to the OP, as well as to other Companies, for placement, but all in vain. It was further stated that, in spite of the assurance of the OP, of 99% job success, in the said course, it neither gave him placement, nor he got the same from any other Company. It was further stated that the OP was still giving advertisement of 100% employment guarantee, in the newspapers, vide Annexure C-6, which proved to be false, as it failed to provide any job to the complainant. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OP not only amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, but also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by him. 3. Notice of the complaint was sent to the OP for 25.2.2010, and report of the process server was received, that he alongwith the complainant, had gone to the premises of the OP, in Sector-4, MDC Panchkula, to get service effected on Mr.Sohan Marwaha, its Director, but he refused to receive the summons. The Process Server was directed to file an affidavit. Later on, Gurpal Ram, process-server, also filed his affidavit, to the effect, that he visited the premises of Director Sohan Marwaha of the OP, at the relevant address, but he refused to accept the summons, inspite of the fact, that he was identified by the complainant. The OP, however, did not appear. It was, under these circumstances, that the OP was proceeded against ex parte, by the District Forum. 4. After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, and on going through the record, the District Forum accepted the complaint, and passed the order, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of this order. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the Appellant/OP 6. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 7. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the appellant never gave any assurance of 100% guaranteed placement/job to the complainant at the time of taking the admission in the course. He further submitted that the other cases, which were decided by the District Forum, in which the appeals were disposed of, by this Commission, as also by the National Commission, were grounded on completely different facts, and circumstances, and, as such the same had no relevance, whatsoever, with the instant case. He further submitted that C-6, the advertisement, in the daily ‘The Tribune’ dated 1.2.2009(Sunday), which was issued by the appellant/OP only related to the ‘overseas employers guaranteed’ and not ‘overseas employment guaranteed’. He further submitted that there was a wide difference, between the words “overseas employers guaranteed’ and ‘overseas employment guaranteed’. He, however, submitted that the complainant took admission, in the course, and paid full fee of Rs.49,950/- He further submitted that after the completion of the course, the complainant was awarded the certificate. He further submitted that the OP was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. 8. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant, submitted that, in the classified advertisement, given in the daily Tribune dated 1.2.2009(Sunday) Annexure C-6, it was, in clear cut terms, stated by the appellant/OP that ‘overseas employers guaranteed’. He further submitted that attracted by this advertisement, as also the terms and conditions of the brochure, the complainant took admission, in the course, being run by the OP institute, and deposited a sum of Rs.49,950/-. He further submitted that, no doubt, the certificate, after the completion of the course, was issued to him, but he was not given the job, by any overseas employers, as guaranteed by the OP, nor it (OP) facilitated his placement with the foreign employers. He further submitted that, as such, the appellant/OP did not honour the commitment and, on the other hand, put him off on one excuse, or the other. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, the appellant/OP was not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to he upheld. 9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. Undisputedly, the complainant/respondent, took admission in Tesol Programme of OP institute and deposited full fee of Rs.49,950/- for the whole course. There is also, no dispute, about the factum, that after the completion of the course, he was issued the certificate which is Annexure C-4. C-6 is the advertisement, given in the Classified Plus in the Sunday Tribune of February,1,2009, by the OP/appellant which reads as under ‘ “Get Certified in 120 hrs. Overseas Employers Guaranteed For Fluent English Speakers Learnt to earn Monthly 1-3 lacs plus Airfare, Accommodation Paid & attractive Packages For appointment Call 0172-2692662,2693609,98761-25050 Tesol India.” 10. Any person, on reading this advertisement, could certainly be attracted that he would get job at the instance of the OP, with the overseas employers. There is hardly any difference, between the advertisement containing the words ‘overseas employment guaranteed’ given in other cases, and the advertisement, containing the words ‘overseas employers guaranteed’ given in the instant case. On reading this advertisement, even a well-read person, could certainly come to the conclusion, that after the completion of course, his job with the overseas employers, was guaranteed. No condition was incorporated in Annexure C-6 advertisement, that a candidate can only be employed by the overseas employers, if he was found eligible, by them, or if he fulfilled the terms and conditions, laid down by them. It was the duty of the appellant/OP to clearly specify, in the advertisement, as to what were the other conditions, which were required to be fulfilled, by a candidate, passing the course, from its institute, for getting the job with the overseas employers. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, that there was a wide difference, between the earlier advertisement, containing the words ‘overseas employment guaranteed’ and in the present advertisement ‘overseas employers guaranteed’, does not carry any substance, and the same is rejected. 11. The Counsel for the appellant, also placed reliance on Sabir Khan Vs Delhi Institute of Computer Sciences, IV(2009)CPJ 378, decided by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in support of his contention, that even if, it was assumed, that such an assurance was given to the complainant and he was not provided any job, it could not be said that the OP was deficient, in rendering service. The facts of the aforesaid case are, clearly distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case. In that case, the complainant took admission, in the Diploma course voluntarily. He filled the admission form voluntarily. No document, whatsoever, was produced, on the record showing that the job was guaranteed to the complainant ,after the completion of the Diploma course, and issuance of the certificate to him. In these circumstances, the aforesaid State Commission held that, after passing the Diploma Course, the complainant was issued a certificate and, as such, there was no deficiency, in rendering service by the OP. In the instant case, as stated above, vide C-6 advertisement, admittedly given by the OP/appellant, in bold words it was written ‘overseas employers guaranteed’. The facts of the aforesaid case, thus, being distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case, no help can be drawn, by the Counsel for the appellant, from the same. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. 12. No doubt, at the time of arguments, the Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in other cases, there was a clear cut advertisement that ‘overseas employment guaranteed’ and, as such, the complaints filed by the complainants, in those cases, were allowed by the District Forum, appeals preferred against the same, were dismissed by the State Commission and even the revision petitions, filed in the National Commission, were also dismissed. We have considered the facts and circumstances of this case, as also the advertisement C-6, which was admittedly given by the OP. No doubt, the wording of the advertisement C-6 in the instant case, is different from the wording of the advertisement, in other cases, as submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, yet that hardly makes any difference. We have discussed, in detail, that the words ‘overseas employers guaranteed’ mentioned in the advertisement C-6 were sufficient to attract a student, that after the completion of the course, he will certainly get employment with the foreign employers, at the instance of the OP. In this case, the complainant is neither taking help from the advertisement given, in other cases, nor from the decision in those cases, but he grounded his arguments, on the evidence produced before the District Forum. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not carry any substance, and the same stands rejected. The District Forum, was right, in holding that the OP was not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. 13. The order of the District Forum, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 14. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being without merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.3000/- 15. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 16. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
