D.C. SOOD vs NIIT

IN this appeal filed against judgment and order dated 7.10.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] dismissing the Complaint Case No. 102 of 2002 filed by Col. D.C. Sood against NIIT and M/s. Delta INformation Services Limited, the short submission made by the appellant is that the District Forum has wrongly held that he was not a consumer vis-a-vis the O.Ps. inasmuch as it was the INdian Army, which had approached the respondents and entered into an agreement for imparting education of Post Graduate Diploma in INformation Technology and Management.

BEFORE dealing with the aforesaid contention, the facts of the case may briefly be narrated. The appellant is in active service of Indian Army. And he was granted two years study leave by the Military Training Directorate Army Headquarters vide letter dated 8.9.1999. The period of leave was from 30.9.1999 to 29.9.2001. The appellant was to pursue Post Graduate Diploma in Information Technology and Management from M/s. Delta Information Services Limited (a licensee of NIIT) Sector 11, Panchkula. The appellant was charged a sum of Rs. 36,000/- for two years Post Graduate Diploma Course, which was paid in instalments. The grievance of the appellant was that the respondents were not at all serious in qualitative and quantitative instructions as they were only interested in collecting fees. A syllabus had been issued by the company at time of enrolment and the said syllabus was to be followed for a period of two years and it had the approval of the Military Training Directorate of the Army Headquarters. The respondents followed the syllabus for first semester only and there was no set schedule followed by them and a major portion of the syllabus was not covered at all. It was alleged that many items were covered partially only. The uncovered syllabus and incomplete portion of the same were detailed in the complaint and which have been extracted under Captions (a) and (b) showing ''uncovered syllabus''; and ''incomplete portion'' respectively. Even the faculty was bad and during the complete two periods, there was only one test conducted and that too in the first month only. It was alleged that six instructors were changed by the respondents either due to incompetence or not being able to retain them due to poor remunerations. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of respondents, complaint was filed seeking refund of Rs. 36,000/- paid to the respondents as course fees with damages of Rs. 1 lac for harassment resulting from the aforesaid deficiency in service.

The respondents appeared through Shri P.M. Mittal, Accountant working with the respondent No. 1. The averments made in the complaint were denied. It was alleged that the appellant was provided complete education for the course for which he was admitted and the course joined by the appellant had been completed and certificate issued by NIIT Limited. The respondents failed to appear before the District Forum after Shri P.M. Mittal had put in appearance and the respondents were ordered to proceed ex parte. The complainant filed his own affidavit and photocopies of certain documents.

THE District Forum held that the appellant was granted two years study leave by the Military Training Directorate of the Army Headquarters for pursuing the said Post Graduate Diploma in Information Technology and Management from M/s. Delta Information Services Limited. THE institute was also approved by the employer of the appellant leaving no choice to the appellant to choose the institute. It was held that as the institute in question was approved by the employer of the complainant and that the said institute had issued certificate for the course to the complainant, the complainant ought to have brought the deficiency in service to the notice of his employer. It was held further that had the complainant joined the course on the basis of express representation of O.P. institute that such and such course would be conducted and that a particular facility would be provided and in that case if such promised facility was not provided and promised course was not followed then the complainant would have grouse against the O.P.-institute. Lastly it was held that as the institute in question was approved by the employer of the appellant and that the said institute had issued certificate for the course the complainant had joined, so there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and the complaint was dismissed. So far as the appellant/complainant is concerned, he in his own right is a consumer as provided in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act] which provides as under: "(d) ''consumer'' means any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services of any commercial purpose."

[Emphasis supplied]

THE appellant was clearly a beneficiary of the deduction imparted in the said course though selected by his employer i.e., Military Training Directorate Army Headquarters and as beneficiary he joined the course and himself paid the course fee of Rs. 36,000/-. Once, it is held that the appellant was a consumer being beneficiary of such services and with the approval of the first mentioned person i.e., the employer the appellant could file a complaint seeking reliefs under the C.P. Act resulting from deficiency in service alleged on the part of the respondents. THE appellant was not required to approach and contact his employer regarding his grouse against the respondents of acts/omissions, which amounted to deficiency in service. THE mere fact that certificate has been issued by the respondents regarding the course to the complainant would by itself not be a conclusive proof of the fact that the appellant had been imparted education for the various subjects mentioned in the syllabus for courses for which he had taken admission and paid fees of Rs. 36,000/-. The appellant has placed on record two copies of certificates issued by NIIT certifying that Col. D.C. Sood (IC 36586M) during 24 months of study on the specified curriculum approved by the Indian Army and having found the officer''s performance to be good have pleasure in recognizing this attainment with the award of this Post Graduate Diploma in Information Technology and Management. The photocopy of first certificate is appended as Annexure ''B'' on the file of appeal and this was issued on 22nd day of November, 2001 at New Delhi. It is interesting to find that the same diploma certificate was again issued in the name of Col. D.C. Sood (IC 36586 M) having same 24 months of study in Information Technology and Management and this certificate was issued on 17th day of December, 2002 at New Delhi. The second diploma dated 17.12.2002 does not bear any endorsement and it was a copy of the earlier diploma. The appellant contended that he at no stage applied for issuing another diploma and it showed that the diploma was issued on two dates despite his assertion that the syllabus was not taught completely. Since the District Forum has not considered the various averments made regarding deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and has dismissed the complaint on a short and cryptic finding of there being no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents resulting from the issuance of certificate and further leaving the appellant to bring his grievances for redressal to his employer, which in our considered opinion, is contrary to the settled position of law, cannot be sustained. The case of the appellant has to be considered on the basis of the averments made in the complaint case.

THE District Forum, in our considered opinion, was in error in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the complainant was not a consumer vis-a-vis the respondents. THE appeal is allowed. THE impugned judgment and order of the District Forum is set aside. THE complaint case is remanded to the District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh for disposal on merit and according to law. THE parties are directed to appear before the District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh on 16.8.2004. THE District Forum shall make all endeavours to decide the complaint case within a period of three months as prescribed under the C.P. Act. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal allowed.