BRIG. RAKESH SHARMA vs NIIT LIMITED

THIS is an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum-I) dated 28.10.2005 in Complaint Case No. 528 of 2003 Col. Rakesh Sharma v. NIIT.

SHRI M.G. Sharma, authorised representative of the appellant brought out that there was misrepresentation by respondent No. 2 in respect of principal-agent relationship of the respondents for the period 25.9.2000 to 24.9.2002. He referred to paragraph No. 2 of the internal page 4 of the impugned order and quoted that the licence agreement dated 30.9.2004 of the respondent No. 2 i.e., M/s. Delta Information Services Private Limited indicates that the licensee is an independent contractor and is neither an agent, nor legal representative, nor partner, nor subsidiary, nor joint venture, nor their employee and, therefore, the O.P. No. 1 is not responsible for any wrong committed by the licensee. He highlighted that the agreement referred to is dated 30.9.2004 whereas the complaint pertains to the period 25.9.2000 to 24.9.2002. He further stated that under the circumstances, use of stationery of M/s. NIIT Limited by M/s. Delta Information Service Private Limited is a misrepresentation and unfair trade practice and that the learned District Forum had not taken cognizance of this fact. We have gone through the impugned order and find that the present complaint brings out similar issues as brought out in IV (2004) CPJ 723=First Appeal No. 97 of 2005, Col. D.C. Sood v. NIIT, dismissed vide order dated 27.9.2003. It is also pertinent to mention that the complainant has himself given six monthly feedback, one year feedback and 1 year feedback wherein he has under his own signatures certified that the course is running as per the schedule and that he has been graded during the period and has also stated that his attendance has been 100 per cent.

Having given these feedback certificates voluntarily and having completed the course, it cannot now lie in the mouth of the appellant who is a senior and responsible army officer that the standard of instruction was poor or that there was non-completion of syllabus. It is also been noted that the Military Training Directorate, Army Headquarters have also taken no suitable action on the copy of the letter written by the appellant annexed at internal page 15 of the appeal. As regards change of venue of the course, this allegation is totally vague and nowhere it has been indicated as to when and for what time was the venue changed or what is the extent of loss. There is also no evidence on record to prove that the O.P. No. 2 had given an undertaking that the venue of the course will not be changed during the tenure of the course.

UNDER the circumstances, we find no reason to admit the appeal and the same is dismissed in limine. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.