Order No.  10  dt.  28/10/2016

      The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant received a telephone call from o.p. on  08/07/2014 and as per their advice the complainant met with Mr. Tanvir Khan, the concerned person of o.p. who assured the complainant that after completion of the course the complainant would be placed in a reputed company like I.T.C. The o.p. runs a consultancy firm offering both placement assistance and placement guaranteed programme to the students. As per assurance given by the o.p. the complainant paid Rs. 22,500/-. The complainant admitted for the SAPMM module in month of July, 2015. The counselor of the o.p. gave the assurance that the complainant would get a job opportunity after one and half months from the date of admission and within the training period. Duration of the course was three months but it took around one year for the completion of the course. Even after completion of the course the complainant was not informed by the o.p. for any placement. The o.p. assured the complainant that the amount of the course fee would be refunded if no placement could be made by them. The complainant knocked the door of the o.p. several times in terms of the notification issued by them. The complainant sent a letter on 15/05/2015 informing the entire facts and with request to refund the amount of Rs. 22,500/-. The letter was duly received by the o.p. Hence the application praying the refund of Rs. 22,500/-, compensation for prolonged harassment, mental agony along with litigation cost.

            After the service of the notice upon the o.p., they appeared by filing power on 04/02/2016. But they did not file any w/v. So the matter was heard ex-parte as against them. 

Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the petition of complaint which was filed by affidavit. Upon scrutiny of the entire materials on record we have observed that the o.p. gave the assurance to provide the students the best of placement support services in a fast, accurate and transparent manner. They would also arrange on-campus interviews and would sent the students for interviews at client site. But the o.p.s did not provide any service as per their commitment. Though the Ld. Lawyer appeared for o.p. on 04/02/2016 by filing power but thereafter they did not file w/v. The complainant submitted before the Forum that a talk of compromise was going on. But no compromise took place. Due to unchallenged testimony we have nothing to disbelief the documents filed by the o.p. and as such we find deficiency in service on the part of the o.p., therefore the complainant is entitled to get relief.

            Hence,

                        ORDERED

            that the complainant case being no. CC/400/2015 is allowed ex-parte with cost.

            That the o.p. is directed to refund Rs. 22,500/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand and Five Hundred) only to the complainant which was paid by the complainant.

            That the o.p. is also directed to give compensation of Rs. 2,000/- ( Rupees Two Thousand) only for deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. along with Rs. 1,000/- ( Rupees One Thousand) only with litigation cost.       

            The o.p. is directed to give the aforesaid amount within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.          

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.