This is a bunch of six revision petitions, which have been filed by Tesol India, who was sole opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, U.T., Chandigarh (District Forum for short), against the orders dated 17^th of March, 2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh (State Commission for short).  The State Commission has dismissed all the six appeals filed by the petitioner/opposite party by passing identical orders.  We, therefore, propose to dispose of all the six revision petitions by this common order.

          In brief, the facts of the cases, as alleged by the complainants, are that the petitioner/opposite party had published an advertisement in newspapers offering a course by the name of “Learn to Earn” with Overseas Job Guaranteed luring the prospective candidates by indicating their overseas placement with handsome pay package on completion of the programme so offered.  On being attracted by the same, the complainants sought admission in the said course, deposited the fee prescribed and completed the course.  The complainants allege that though they were issued certificates to this effect by the petitioner/opposite party but no action was taken by it for their placement.  After waiting for a considerable period when the complainants approached the petitioner/opposite party, it not only refused to do anything for their placement but also denied refund of the fee.  The complainants allege that at the time of admission, they received a brochure of Global Tesol College, Canada, which, inter alia, stated ‘job-guarantee’, fee refund and e-mails of successfully placed students.  The logo of Global Tesol College, Canada was used by the petitioner/opposite party stating that they were also a part of this college and now on completion of the course when they had to provide placement to the complainants they are refusing to do anything on the pretext that their policies have nothing to do with the Global Tesol College, Canada. 

In this background, alleging deficiency in service on the part of petitioner/opposite party, the complainants had filed their separate complaints before the District Forum, which, on appreciation of rival submissions of both the parties, while allowing the complaints directed the petitioner/opposite party to refund the fee deposited by the complainants (in some cases with 9% interest per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till payment made), besides compensation varying between Rs.7500/- to Rs.20,000/- and cost of litigation varying between Rs.2500/- to Rs.5,000/-.  It was also directed by the District Forum that in case the payment is not made by the petitioner/opposite party within 30 days from the receipt of the order, it shall also be liable to pay penal interest @ 12% to 18% per annum from the date of the order till realization. 

Feeling aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/opposite party preferred appeals before the State Commission.  The State Commission did not find any force in their appeals and accordingly dismissed them with cost of Rs.5000/- in each appeal.

Dissatisfied with the order of State Commission, that petitioner/opposite party has filed these Revision Petitions to challenge the order of dismissal of its appeals before us.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party at length.  She has vehemently argued that the petitioner/opposite party, nowhere had given any commitment to provide jobs abroad.  According to her, the commitment was only for providing assistance to secure a job only if the complainants had followed the step-by-step process after completion of the Tesol Course.  In other words, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner/opposite party having satisfactorily discharged their part of the service in conducting the Foundation Tesol Course and having issued the certificate of completion of the study programme/course, it could not be said that there has been any deficiency on their part.

With regard to the finding of fora below that the petitioner/opposite party has resorted to unfair trade practice, the learned counsel submits that the fora below have erroneously relied upon only Exhibit C-1, the advertisement.  According to her, the same had to be read along with the terms stated in the brochure and the registration form wherein the procedure has been elaborated, according to which the complainants had to follow the step-by-step process for getting a job.  Further, the advertisement being in the nature of providing information with regard to the conduct of the certificate course should not have been made the sole criteria for holding that the petitioner/opposite party had resorted to unfair trade practice.  Any lacuna in the advertisement is due to the mistake of graphic designer.

We have carefully gone through the orders passed by the District Forum as well as the State Commission.  We have also minutely perused the Exhibit C-1 and the brochure.  While the Exhibit C-1, the advertisement published in the Times of India, Chandigarh on the 2^nd of June, 2007, below the words “Get Certified in 120 hrs.” in very bold letters states “Overseas Job Guaranteed)” and further re-emphasizes in the form of a round stamp which states “Job 100% Guaranteed”, we further find that the brochure on its very first page at the bottom states “www.globaltesol.com.Jobs Guaranteed”. We do not find any foot note in these documents to indicate if the guarantees stated were subject to any terms & conditions separately given.  In view thereof, we cannot but agree and affirm the view of the State Commission that these documents leave no doubt in anybody’s mind that the opposite party (the present petitioner) had allured the complainants to join the institute with a 100% job guarantee.  These documents more than eloquently prove that they were not only misleading in nature but also totally false, inasmuch as the petitioner/opposite party has failed to provide assured jobs and is now taking recourse to apportioning the blame on the complainants.  This certainly amounts to unfair trade practice as defined under Section 2(1)(r)(1)(vi), which is extracted below :-

“(r)  unfair trade practice” means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely :-

(1) the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which,

(vi) makes a false or misleading representation concerning the need for, or the usefulness of, any goods or services.”

The explanations now being offered that the petitioner’s commitment was limited to completion of Tesol Course only and that it was for the complainants to apply for the jobs to prospective employers in foreign countries is only a camouflage to evade the commitment.  As rightly observed by the State Commission, the petitioner/opposite party has failed to provide any evidence to prove that they aggressively helped the complainants to secure jobs or that they had any system of tie-up with the foreign employers for their placements. 

In view of the above as also this being a case of concurrent finding of facts by both the fora below and further finding no merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party, we are of the view that the revision petitions deserve to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself and we order accordingly.  The petitioner/opposite party is directed to comply with the order passed by the State Commission within a period of two months.