Ajay Kumar Gupta vs VIVEK SINHA

RESPONDENT is an Institute providing education and training to the students. Appellant paid a sum of Rs. 70,000 for three months training with the assurance of a high salaried job in India and America. Allegation of the appellant that the respondent-Institute did not have a qualified faculty nor the expertise and apparatus as assured in the advertisement and prospectus of the respondent and he has suffered immensely because he had to give up his job as an Accountant upon the assurance given by the respondent for a well paid job. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed a complaint before the District Forum which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 6th February, 2002 on the ground that there was nothing on record to show that the respondent did not have competent faculty for providing coaching and also that the respondent had promised to provide a job after completion of the training.

WE have perused the impugned order and find that the District Forum did not take note of allegations proved by the complainant by way of affidavit as well as other facts in support of the allegations that the faculty was neither qualified nor did it possess the expertise and apparatus as assured in the documents like advertisement and prospectus in as much as that the respondent did not even mention names of the teachers, their qualifications in the advertisement or in the brochure nor respondent refer to any past placements of the trainees and further that there was no qualified staff at all. It is surprising that for a course as short as having duration of three months, a sum of Rs. 70,000 was charged by the respondent and to expect a candidate to leave such a course hardly after a month and that too after leaving the job is difficult to accept. This shows that the faculty of the respondent was neither qualified nor did possess the expertise nor the Institute had necessary apparatus for such a prestigious course. Nothing prevented the respondent from furnishing the list of candidates for placement purposes.

Any kind of fault, imperfection, shortcoming in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any services amounts to deficiency in service.

HOWEVER, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that the appellant deposited the fees for the course for three months and since the training was not upto to the satisfaction nor was of the standard as required for such a high valued course but attended it hardly for a month and, therefore, is entitled to proportionate refund. In such cases no Institute can be allowed to forfeit the amount for which it has either not provided the service or has not been availed by the trainee. In totality of the fact of the case we partly allow the appeal and award a refund of Rs. 50,000 to the appellant. The above payment shall be made within one month.

APPEAL is allowed to the aforesaid extent. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Appeal partly allowed.