APPEAL 63/2003

JUDGMENT DATED: 28.4.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU            : PRESIDENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                        : MEMBER

1. V.K.Raveendran,                                      : APPELLANTS

     Director, CT & T Computer Centre,

     A-37, Ilangam Gardens, Vellayambalam,

     Thiruvananthapuram – 695 010.

2. CT & T Computer Centre,

     A-37, Ilangam Gardens, Vellayambalam,

     Thiruvananthapuram – 695 010.

(By Adv.Anayara Shaji)

            Vs.

V.P.Sivaprasad,                                           : RESPONDENT

Pavithram,

Kulasekharam.P.O.,

Kulasekharam – 629 161,

Kanyakumari District.

(By Adv.K.P.Renadive)

JUDGMENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA     : MEMBER

This appeal preferred from the order passed by CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP.224/98 dated 31.10.02.  The appellants were the opposite parties in the above order.  The appellants filed this appeal under the order of the Forum below awarded,  an amount of Rs.20000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost.  Rs.20000/- as compensation awarded by Forum below with future interest at the rate of 14.5%  which were challenged by the appellants in this appeal.  According to the complainant, 1^st opposite party  has advertised in the Malayala Manorama daily on 12.12.97 that the 2^nd opposite party is conducting an IBM main frame training course and on  completion of the training the trainees will be provided with jobs in repudiated U.S companies.  The complainant joined the courses after remitting 25000/- and successfully completed the course.  A certificate was issued for the same but no job was provided for the opposite parties according to the  complainant.  So a complaint was filed by the complainant for refund of Rs.25000/- which was paid as fees, Rs.25000/- claimed for loss of job opportunities and  Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and other losses. 

2. The opposite parties filed their written version and contended that complaint is not maintainable and there is no  consumer disputes involved in this case.  The 2^nd opposite party contended that they are conducting computer education training centers having at 91 centers.   The training centre at Thiruvananthapuram, started IBM main frame training programme and so many engineering graduates joined in this training course and after completing  the course, attended the interview arranged by the 2^nd opposite party and got employment in U.S.A.  The opposite parties also contended that further every applicants will be provided with  a prospectus  in which 100% placement assistance is ensured by the institute and in the application given to the applicant  is instructed to fill the same only after going through the prospectus.  The  fees charged by the  institute is only Rs.25,000/- but the same time ER & DC a Central government undertaking is charging Rs.45,000/- for the same course.  According to the opposite parties the institute    has a placement cell that assists the students in choosing and finding the right career opening after the successful completion of their course by arranging  interviews.  But without approaching  the complainant  and without waiting for a reasonable period  for arranging such interviews, the petitioner filed this OP on 30.4.98 within one month from the date of completion of the course.  The complainant was in a haste to file the complaint to see  that some money can be grabbed  from the opposite parties without waiting to  see that he can procure a job abroad.  Further the applicant submitted that the applicant joined the course on 11.11.97  before the date of advertisement in Malayala Manorama on 12.12.97.  The allegations made in the complaint  are false and   untrue and the relief claimed is to be dismissed with compensatory costs of the opposite parties.

3. The evidence consisted of Exts.P1 to P6 for the complainants and Exts. D1 to D6 for the opposite parties.  There is no oral testimony from both sides.

4. The Forum below answered all the points arranged for consideration and found that there is clear breach of promise for which compensation is to be made.  But as the training course has been successfully completed then  there is no question to refund of the fee already paid, but the opposite party is bound to pay compensation for the non fulfillment of main condition in the advertisement, which is providing placement for every trainees.  The Forum below found that the complainant is entitled to get damages.  In the result Forum below directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.20000/- with future interest at the rate of 14.5% and also to Rs.1000/- as costs.

5. The appellants prefers this appeal from the above  impugned order passed by the Forum below .  On this day this appeal came before final hearing both the appellants and the respondents/complainants represented and heard both sides.  The counsel for the appellant vehemently argued  that the appellants already  fulfilled all the conditions offered by them in the newspaper advertisement.  And the counsel for the appellants argued on the ground of appeal memorandum that there is no single evidence for any deficiency of service committed by the appellants.  He argued that the appellants already offered placement to the complainant as guaranteed by them.  But the complainant and other so many engineering graduates those who respond the willingness of the appellants to give the placement.  The counsel for the respondent/complainant argued that the complainant is not having allegation about the course conducted by the appellants but the condition of the appellants take they offered a placement in USA to the complainant is untrue and baseless.  There is evidence adduced by the appellants to show that they arranged placement to the complainant as guaranteed in the advertisement.  Another interesting aspect is seeing that the advertisements one to other is different by in its contents.  The counsel for the appellant submitted that there were subsequent corruption of the advertisements published in the newspaper.  But there is no evidence adduced by them they published any correction any of the newspaper advertisement.  This Commission seeing that the appellants conducted the course without any complaint but they failed to offer placement to the complainant as guaranteed by them in the advertisement.  This is nothing but a deficiency of service we are not seeing any apparent error in the  order