STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDGIARH In Appeal No.153 of 2009 Tesol India, SCO No.170, Top Floor, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh through its Director Sh. S. Marwaha. ..…Appellant. VersusSh. Govind Singh Patwal R/o 3353/2, Sector 45-D, Chandigarh. ..…Respondent. Appeal No.154 of 2009 Tesol India, SCO No.170, Top Floor, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh through its Director Sh. S. Marwaha. ..…Appellant. VersusSh. Vivek Kalra R/o H.No.2018, New Railway Street, Bharat Nagar, Batala Road, Amritsar – 143001. ..…Respondent. Appeal No.155 of 2009 Tesol India, SCO No.170, Top Floor, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh through its Director Sh. S. Marwaha. ..…Appellant. VersusSh. Rakesh R/o H.No.1494-A, Sector 20-B, Chandigarh. ..…Respondent. BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT. HON’BLE MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER. HON’BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER. ARGUED BY: Sh. R. S. Dhiman, Advocate for the appellant – TESOL India. Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate the respondent (complainant). MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER. 1. Vide this common order, we are disposing of three appeals bearing No.153, 154 and 155 all of 2009 filed by OP i.e. Tesol India arising out of one and the common order dated 11.2.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in complaint case No.910 of 2008 : Govind Singh Patwal Vs. Tesol India, vide which two similar complaint cases bearing No.911 and 912 both of 2008 filed by Vivek Kalra and Rakesh were also decided. 2. Briefly the facts as taken from complaint case No.910 of 2008 are that according to the Complainant Sh. Govind Singh Patwal on being attracted by an advertisement in the newspaper which stated “OVERSEAS JOB GUARANTEED” and job would fetch “MONTHLY 1-3 LACS PLUS” and after paying the full fee of Rs.49,950/-, took admission in the tesol programme with the OP. As per the complainant, after completing the said course, no placement was give to him for a job. It was averred that when the complainant approached OP along with some other students, it flatly refused to help. It was told to the complainant by the OP that it had nothing to do with the polices of the Global Tesol College, Canada though at the time of admission, he was told by the OP that the OP was part of Tesol Global College, Canada. It was averred by the complainant that number of employers in the list given by OP asked for native English speakers whereas the OP had promised that the jobs were available for non native English speakers (Indians). It was next averred that on one occasion, the employer OP asked for 550 Euros (approx. 38,500 INR) before arriving in Austria, which employer on verifications was found to be non existent. The complainant, it was averred, served a legal notice dated 3.5.2008 upon the OP but to no avail. Alleging the aforesaid acts of OP as deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on its part, the complainant had filed the present complaint. 3. The version of OP is that there was no advertisement regarding job guarantee except the advertisement dated 2.6.2007, which was due to the negligence of the graphic designer. It was stated that OP had got no concern with the Global Tesol College Canada and there was no such clause for employment in the registration form and policy and the names of employers were being provided by the Institute(OP) as complementary. Pleading no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. The learned District Forum, in its analysis of the complaint, observed that OP had indulged in unfair trade practice by giving an advertisement containing 100% overseas job guarantee and issuing brochure wherein job guarantee was given. It was further observed that even after admission and completion of course by the complainant, OP had refused to provide any job or placement to him and in such a manner, the complainant had been harassed by the OP by not refunding the fee or getting him placed in some job overseas. As per the learned District Forum, the latest advertisement (P-15) of Global Tesol College Canada, available on internet, still states “We Guarantee you a job”. In the view of learned District Forum, OP had been using the logo of Tesol Global College, which mentioned about job guarantee, fee refund and also of e-mail of successfully placed students. As per the learned District Forum, the Complainant had certainly suffered a great mental and physical agony and harassment at the hands of the OP, due to their highly unprofessional attitude, which had also badly disturbed the peaceful life of the Complainant. Holding that the OP had rendered deficient services to the Complainant by not fulfilling their promises as given in the brochure, the learned District Forum allowed all the three complaints and directed the OP to refund the respective fee charged from the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f the date of institution of complaints till the date of payment besides Rs.7,500/- as compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, mental agony and loss suffered by the Complainant. The complainants were also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,500/- each as costs of litigation. The order was directed to be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which OP was made liable to pay the aforesaid amounts along with penal interest @ 12% per annum with effect from the date of order till realization. 5. Aggrieved by the said order of learned District Forum, the OP has filed three separate appeals as stated in the opening para of the order. The appeals having been taken on board, notices were sent to the respective respondents/complainants and record of complaint case was summoned. Sh. R. S. Dhiman, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant/OP whereas Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate represented all the respondents/complainants. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/OP submitted that the learned District Forum had erred in coming to a conclusion of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP because it did not read the brochure of the OP in a holistic manner. He further submitted that as per the brochure, the complainants were required to apply for job to the list of employers provided by the OP but the complainants in fact did not apply to all the employers in the list. Further referring to Annexure R-1 at Page 57, the learned counsel submitted that it is clearly indicated in this form that Tesol India was not liable to provide jobs to the Tesol Candidates after completion of the Tesol course and the liability of the Institute is limited towards completion of Tesol Courses only. He vehemently submitted that this was very much in the knowledge of the complainants at the time of registration for the course and therefore, now it cannot lye in the mouth of the complainants to claim 100% job guarantee and any compensation for non provision of the same. He also submitted that even in the body of the brochure, there was no guarantee for providing job and the Institute will only endeavor to support the candidate in their efforts to find the job. 7. In response, Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate learned counsel for the complainants submitted that Annexure C-1, which is an advertisement giving a job guarantee and also the brochure itself clearly mentions that there will be a 100% job placement done by the Institute. The learned counsel also submitted that the Institute never supplied the list of about 1000 schools, which the Institute claims to be affiliated to it. The learned counsel thereafter submitted after referring to Annexures C-10 to C-12 that the queries raised indicated that those institutes wanted English Speaking Natives and the jobs were not for Indians. The learned counsel also clarified to the Bench that the complainants had applied to three countries but could not get any job placement. He further submitted that malafide on the part of OP is clearly established by the fact that it even refused to accept the legal notice. 8. We have gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. A critical perusal of Annexure C-1 and the brochure itself supplied by the appellant leaves no doubt in anybodies mind that OP had allured the complainants to join the Institute with a 100% job guarantee. Admittedly, the OP has failed to provide any job to the complainants. There is also no evidence on record to prove that in any manner, OP helped the complainants to secure a job or that it had any system of campus placements or that it had any tie up with the employers/schools, which guaranteed a job to the students of the Institute after completion of the course. It is a clear case not only of deficiency in service but is also of unfair trade practice as defined under Section 2(1)(r)(vi) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which reads as under: - “…makes a false or misleading representation concerning the need for or usefulness of any goods or services.” It is relevant to mention that the brochure repetitively mentions and assures 100% job guarantee and thus, we are in total consonance with the view held by learned District Forum that OP is guilty of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. It is also relevant to mention here that such misleading advertisements, which attract the global consumer cannot be permitted to be published and this trend needs to be sternly curbed. Thus, the impugned order needs to be modified to this extent. 10. Consequently, the all the three appeals bearing No.153, 154 and 155 all of 2009 being devoid of merit are dismissed with exemplary costs, which we quantify as Rs.5,000/- in each appeal because the appellant has unnecessarily dragged the complainants into an unwarranted litigation. The impugned order is upheld with the modification that the appellant/OP is also now directed not to issue any misleading advertisement and also to amend its brochure accordingly. 11. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 17th March 2010. [JUSTICE PRITAM PAL] PRESIDENT [MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR(RETD.)] MEMBER [MRS. NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Ad/-
STATE COMMISSION | | Appeal No.153 of 2009 | ARGUED BY: Sh. R. S. Dhiman, Advocate for the appellant – TESOL India. Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate the respondent (complainant). | Dated the 17th day of March, 2010. ORDER | Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal along with connected appeals bearing No.154 and 155 all of 2009 have been dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- in each appeal. |
(MAJ GEN S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.)) MEMBER | [JUSTICE PRITAM PAL] PRESIDENT | (MRS. NEENA SANDHU) MEMBER |
Ad/-
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDGIARH Appeal No.154 of 2009 Tesol India, SCO No.170, Top Floor, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh through its Director Sh. S. Marwaha. ..…Appellant. VersusSh. Vivek Kalra R/o H.No.2018, New Railway Street, Bharat Nagar, Batala Road, Amritsar – 143001. ..…Respondent. BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT. HON’BLE MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER. HON’BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER. ARGUED BY: Sh. R. S. Dhiman, Advocate for the appellant – TESOL India. Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate the respondent (complainant). MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER. 1. For orders, see the orders passed in Appeal No.153 of 2009 titled ‘Tesol India Vs. Sh. Govind Singh Patwal’ vide which this appeal has been dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- 2. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 17th March 2010. [JUSTICE PRITAM PAL] PRESIDENT [MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR(RETD.)] MEMBER [MRS. NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Ad/-
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDGIARH Appeal No.155 of 2009 Tesol India, SCO No.170, Top Floor, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh through its Director Sh. S. Marwaha. ..…Appellant. VersusSh. Rakesh R/o H.No.1494-A, Sector 20-B, Chandigarh. ..…Respondent. BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT. HON’BLE MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER. HON’BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER. ARGUED BY: Sh. R. S. Dhiman, Advocate for the appellant – TESOL India. Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate the respondent (complainant). MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER. 1. For orders, see the orders passed in Appeal No.153 of 2009 titled ‘Tesol India Vs. Sh. Govind Singh Patwal’ vide which this appeal has been dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- 2. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 17th March 2010. [JUSTICE PRITAM PAL] PRESIDENT [MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR(RETD.)] MEMBER [MRS. NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Ad/-
| | MAJ GEN S.P.KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | | 
