In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 153 / 2010.
1) Sri Sumit Kumar Dhar,
183A, Park Street, Kolkata-700017. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) The Manager, HCL Career Development Centre,
Corporate Office – HCL Infosystems Ltd.,
F-1, Sector-8, Nioda.
2) The Centre Manager, HCL Career Development Centre,
Regional Manager- 4th Floor, 50, Chowringee Road,
IISCO House, Kolkata-700071. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Smt. Jhumki Saha, Member.
Order No. 1 1 Dated 1 1 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 2 .
The petition of complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 has been filed by Sri Sumit Kr. Dhar against the o.ps. HCL Career Development Centre. The case of the complainant in short is that o.p. no.1 had float Career Development Courses under various modules with brand name HCL and offered the ability to cater the spectrum of consumer and business training through class room based programme and offered HCL Certification Programme on system and network ad administration as well as certificate through allowanced with loading technology company including Microsoft Oracle and Redhat and also to contact world class training programme on various fields like computer software etc. and the complainant joined for his career development in the said courses under the institution of the o.ps. and he was studying BCA and he went to the office of o.p. no.2 on 14.11.09 and purchased a prospectus against the receipt no.219300 dt.14.11.09 and paid Rs.18,000/- for the above mentioned course at the time of admission through cheque no.219501 dt.14.11.09 and o.p. no.2 issued receipt no.219501 dt.14.11.09 and it was told that class will start from 23.11.09 and when the complainant contacted o.p. no.2 over phone o.p. no.2 told that due to illness of the teacher the class was postponed and the class will be held on 26.11.09. But that day the class was not held and the class was held on 27.11.09, 30.11.09, 1.11.09 to 3.12.09 and 4.12.09 and subsequently complainant came to know through o.p. no.2 that the class will not be held for non availability of the teacher. And on 9.1.09 o.p. no.2 told the complainant that class was discontinued due to shortage of students and thereafter complainant asked for refund of deposited amount of Rs.18,000/- but o.ps. did not pay the said sum despite thorough persuasion by complainant. hence, the instant case.
O.ps. had entered into this case by filing w/v denying all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the complainant as well as w/v and evidence of the parties and we find that it is nobody’s case that the complainant did not take admission in t he said institution and it is further apparent from the materials on record that the classes were not held as scheduled owing to lapse on the part of the o.ps. for non availability of teacher as well as student and this act on the part of the o.ps. is a clear deficiency being a service provider towards consumer / complainant and o.ps. are duty bound to refund the deposited amount of Rs.18,000/- and the complainant is entitled to relief as prayed for.
Hence, ordered,
The petition of compliant is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. O.ps. are hereby directed to refund of Rs.18,000/- (Rupees eighteen thousand) only together with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of refund and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for harassment and mental agony towards the complainant and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only. O.ps. are jointly and severally directed to pay the aforesaid sum within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum to the credit of the complainant.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.
____Sd-________ ______Sd-__________
MEMBER PRESIDENT
