Order-19.
Date-13/06/2018.
Sri Rabideb Mukhopadhyay
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant is a student, received an e-mail on 09.07.2014 from the concerned person of OP Mr. Tanveer Khan and being convinced to take a course of ABAP E-Technical from Research Software Solutions (P) Ltd. The Complainant paid a sum of Rs.22,500/- (Rupees twenty two thousand and five hundred) only as course fee on 22.07.2014 and 25.07.2014, a three months course, which later extended o more than 07 (seven) months. The OP guaranteed several interview at MNC’s and job placement and also after completion of Global SAP, certificate would be awarded. However, after completion of the course, OP’s said awarded certificate received was not globally recognized
Ms.Shafaq, counselor of the OP assured that the Complainant would get job opportunity within the training period after one and half months from the date admission. Duration of the course was for 3 (three) months. After completion of the course OP has neither provided any interview nor job opportunity, which is evident from the OP’s Website Information page. The Complainant vide his letter dated 29.08.2016 requested to refund the course fee so received by the OP for not providing any job. OP received the letter on 30.08.2016 but did not take care to redress the grievances. Complainant again sent another letter on 21.02.2017 but to no effect. Complainant himself a student has lost his valuable time and suffered monetary loss, mental agony and harassment. Thus the Complainant was duped by the OP and he prayed before this Forum to admit the petition and direct the OP to refund Rs.22, 500/-
Compensation Rs.60, 000/- and cost of Litigation of Rs.10, 000/-.
Written Version by OP.
OP in his WV filed that the instant case against them is not maintainable, totally misconceived, misleading and liable to be dismissed. Save and except the allegations and disputes which are specifically admitted by the OP and all other allegations and disputes are hereby denied. The averments made in the complaint are partially maters of records and partially untrue and are hereby denied. The OP states that educational (Commercial ) institutions that provides courses for getting advantages of service but there is no question of guaranteed programme of placement but the OP Institution uses to assist the students of the institution for obtaining placements and thus the OP uses to arrange for interview from prospective employesr where the students of the institution would appear before the interview board for achieving goal and in this case the OP arranged interview for the Complainant and he got service through the OP and such fact has been admitted by the Complainant in writing which has been annexed at ‘A’. Actually at first, the Complainant gave a letter to the OP and requested it to allow him to often completion of course and he should be allowed to get refund of Rs.15, 000/- on the ground of financial hardship due to ill health of the father of the Complainant. Therefore, the complainant has no entitlement for filing the instant case to get relief as prayed for. The averments made are partially matters of record and partially untrue and baseless. The OP denies that the OP guaranteed interview after completion of global SAP Certificate Course and Mr. Shafaq assured the Complainant to get job opportunity within the training period after 1 and ½ month from the date of admission is also denied. The Complainant never tried to understand the value of certificate as awarded. Actually he Complainant failed to accept the job offer from the prospective employer and the Complainant failed to tender any document but it is fact that the certificate as awarded by the OP is accepted globally and the Complainant intends to get advantage by representing false statement for wrongful gain, even the petitioner has suppressed the material fact in the instant suit.
It is pertinent to mention here that there is no courses of “SAP ABAP” in the institution. Complainant availed E Tech Course from the institution of the OP and after completion of the aforesaid course, the Complainant was provided opportunity for placement and in fact the complainant was provided opportunity of a service at a monthly salary of Rs.12,000/- and the Complainant issued a letter 31.11.2015 addressed to Research Software Solutions Private Limited of 2 No. Chowringhee Terrace, Kolkata 700 020, Complainant admitted that he was unable to accept the employment due to his some personal problem. The OP has no latches as agitated by the Complainant intentionally for wrongful gain. The OP annexed some letters which entail that the Complainant admitted such fact but he is unable to accept the job offer due to his personal difficulties as the petitioner informed such affairs in writing which is also annexed. Therefore, the instant case has no merit to be entertained.The instant case is liable to be dismissed in limini. The OP kept the word and gave assistance to the Complainant according to newspaper publication, but for personal problem of the Complainant, the service could not be continued by him, and so the OP is not liable to compensate him according to his allegation, which is totally baseless, although the Complainant intends to squeeze money from the OP by way of harassment and the instant case is the result of his wrongful intention which is not sustainable and so the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
Points for Decision
- Whether the complainant is a consumer under the OP,
- Whether the OP is deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant,
- Whether the complainant deserves relief.
Decision with Reasons
- The complainant admitted at Para-3 that he paid Rs.22, 500/- as course fee and the same was completed in 7 months extended from 3 months.
- Para 4 of complaint states of guaranteed interview at several MNCs and job placement and award of Global SAP Certificate. But the complainant failed to submit any evidence in respect of such statement made under Para-4 by complainant. The complainant also failed to provide any evidence that one Ms. Shafaq, counsellor of OP assured that the complainant would get job opportunity after 1 and ½ months from the date of admission, as stated at complainant Para-5.
- At Para-5, the complainant also stated that OP has neither provided any interview nor any job opportunity which h is evident from OP’s website information Page, copy enclosed at Para 7.
Perusal of such website information, it appears that OP offers inter alia, both placement Assist and Placement Guaranteed Programmes, arranging for on-campus interviews and arranging to send students for interviews at client site.
At Para-8, the complainant stated that OP failed, omitted and neglected to keep their assurance and to provide the student the best of placement support and failed to arrange for interview of the student at their client site. Complainant filed copies of his printed letters dated 29/08/2016, and 21/02/2017 addressed to HR Manager, Research Software Solutions (p) Ltd, in support of his grievance, stating, inter alia, “but nobody can inform me any kind of jobs…” and claiming Refund of Money.
In response to such allegations of the complainant, Ld. Advocate for the OP filed copies of two letters dated, 30/11/2015 and 02/12/2015 in support of their submission at Para-5 of WV.
In the WV Para-5, it has been detailed under Affidavit that the complainant was provided opportunity for placement and in fact the complainant was provided service at a monthly salary of Rs.12000/-.
In the letter dated 30/11/2015, the complainant expressed thanks to the Director of OP for providing him a job placement at the RSSPL (OP’s organization) at a salary of Rs.12, 000/- .The complainant also expressed satisfaction for the entire training and Placement process of OP and its teachers and other staff members for making him qualified to get the job.
The complainant also authorized the OP to use his photograph in any advertisement.
It is further averred in the said Para -5 of WV that the complainant admitted that he was unable to accept the employment due to his personal problem and so, the OP had no latches agitated by the complainant intentionally for wrongful gain.
In the letter dated 02/12/2015, the complainant wrote to OP that due to some personal problem from his end, he was unable to accept the placement / employment offer towards joining RSSPL, on 01/12/2015 and expressed sincere thanks for providing him with a genuine placement /employment.
-
It is to be noted that on the date of final hearing, the complainant himself was present and he could not deny writing the letters to the OP as stated above.The complainant only verbally submitted that the OP had got some letters signed by him.
This is to be seriously taken into account that the complainant suppressed all such facts and circumstances in his complaint.He stated one sided facts in his behalf only.The complainant came to the Forum with unclean hands by way of suppression of facts and the case should go against him.The fact should have been disclosed at the beginning before it was detected by the OP.
We gave importance not only on produced evidence but also on verbal presentations of both the parties, and of the complainant in particular.
If for the sake of argument, it is agreed that the OP got some documents or letters signed by the complainant, question arises why did the complainant not disclose the alleged incident in the complaint and why did he not intimate the police of such illegal action on behalf of the OP.The complainant failed to do so.
So, we are afraid that the allegations levelled by the complainant against the OP are fact based.This is the suppression of facts by the complainant, which go against the complainant as per settled principle of laws.
Moreover, the complainant failed to prove any deficiency against the OP so his case against the OP seems to have no merit.
On the date of final argument, one of the parties filled two copies of judgements.There are no endorsements of any party on the same but the judgements might have been filed by the complainant.
- RP No. 892 of 2014 of Hon’ble N.C This relates to Goenka College of Pharmacy & Another –Vs- Anil KumarKumawat and RP No. 893 of 2014 of Hon’ble N.C which relates to Goenka College of Pharmacy & Another-Vs- Pashupati Kumar (Date of Judgement. 11 January, 2018)
Both the cases relate to non-recognition of the OPs by Pharmacy Council of India and the complainants in spite of having degrees of Pharmacy from OP were denied employments and OPs/petitioners were upheld liable.
Facts and circumstances of the instant case are different from the referred two and so, has no ratio.
- R.P No. 3169 of 2015 in Principal, Sri Chaitanya Educational institution-Vs-Govind Prasad Rath (Date of judgement. 07 January, 2016).
This is a case where the complainant/ Respondent had to withdraw enrollment from the college due to food prepared in the hostel in unhygienic condition and claimed deposited money.
The case under reference has also no ratio with the case at hand.
In the circumstances of above analysis, we are constrained to pass
ORDER
That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest in terms of section 13 (2) (b) (i) of the C.P Act, 1986. No order as to costs.
Let copy of the order be handed over to parties when applied for.
