INOVATORS INFOTECH LIMITED vs POONAM SACHDEVA

SINCE all the above mentioned appeals are directed against a common order, have common facts and also raise common questions of law for consideration, the same, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the appellant, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

THE facts relevant for the disposal of all the above mentioned appeals, briefly stated, are that the above named respondents had filed separate complaints under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). In the complaints, filed by the respondents, the respondents had impleaded respondent No. 2 (M/s. Amicable Infotech Private Limited) as O.P. No. 1 and the appellant was impleaded as O.P. No. 2. In the above said complaints it was averred by the respondents that allured by advertisement issued by the appellant, the respondents had joined a Diploma Course in the Indian Institute of Medical Transcription (IIMT). It was stated in the complaints, filed by the respondents, that before joining the Institute an assurance was given to them that each respondent would be provided placement in the field of medical transcription and each respondent would be provided job with a minimum salary of about Rs. 7,000/- p.m. It was stated that the respondnets were also assured that a sum of Rs. 3,000/- would be paid as stipend to each respondent after completion of four months of training, known as OJT. It was stated that each respondent had paid a fees (consideration) of Rs. 25,000/- in lumpsum and Rs. 27,000/- in instalments for taking admission in the said course on the above assurances of respondent No. 2 and the appellant. It was stated that the respondents had undergone OJT training and after completion of four months, instead of sending the respondents to highly based medical transcription company, the appellant and respondent No. 2 had sent the respondents to their own institute at South Extension which was practically of no use. It was stated that respondent No. 2 and the appellant had failed to fulfil their obligations and assurances. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of respondent No. 2 and the appellant, in the complaints, filed by the respondents, before the District Forum it was prayed that the appellant and respondent No. 2, be directed to provide job in medical transcription and also compensation to the respondent. In the alternative it was prayed that the appellant and respondent No. 2 be directed to refund the fees taken by them together with interest @ 24% p.a. Each respondent had also claimed a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- together with litigation expenses. The claim of the respondents in the District Forum was resisted by the appellant and also by respondent No. 2. In the reply/written version, filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, it was stated that the advertisement in question was given by the appellant and that respondent No. 2 was the franchise of the appellant and as per franchise contract the appellant had opened IIMT Centre at the premises of respondent No. 2. The other allegations were also denied in the reply/written version filed on behalf of respondent No. 2.

In the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the appellant, before the District Forum it was stated that the appellant had not given any assurance for placement to the respondents and that the appellant had been wrongly impleaded as one of the opposite parties in the complaints filed by the respondents. It was stated that in case of any dispute it was only respondent No. 2 who was liable and bound to settle the dispute between the complainants/respondents and M/s. Amicable Infotec Private Limited (respondent No. 2, in the present appeal).

THE learned District Forum vide impugned order has held the appellant and respondent No. 2 guilty of deficiency in service and on the basis of the above finding has passed the order being impugned in the present proceedings, directing the appellant and respondent No. 2 to refund the fees to each respondent together with a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and another sum of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation jointly and severally. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the above mentioned appeals under Section 15 of the Act.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the above mentioned appeals and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On the basis of documents/material on record it is not in dispute that the respondents/complainants had paid the consideration/fees and had joined the course. The only question requiring consideration in the present appeal by us is as to whether, in the given facts, was there any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant so as to saddle the appellant with any liability. As already stated, the learned District Forum has held both the appellant and respondent No. 2, who was arrayed as O.P. No. 1 in the complaint filed by the respondents/complainants, guilty of deficiency in service. The grievance of the respondents/complainants in the complaints filed by them, in nutshell, was that they were assured placement and it was represented to them that after conclusion of training they would be provided jobs with a starting salary of Rs. 7,000/- to 9,000/- plus incentives (100% placement was assured). The second grievance of the respondents/complainants was that the training of the required standard was not provided to them. During the course of arguments it is vehemently contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant company was only a franchiser for IIMT (Indian Institute of Medical Transcription) under licence from Global Information Technologies and respondent No. 2 was the franchisee of the appellant company. It was stated that the appellant and respondent No. 2 had entered into an IIMT Franchise Agreement/Contract dated 1.8.2000 and in terms of that contract executed between the appellant and respondent No. 2, the entire obligation was that of respondent No. 2 and the appellant cannot be saddled with any liability for any of the alleged deficiencies. In our opinion, the above argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is devoid of substance because on the basis of material on record it is not in dispute that an advertisement was issued and in the advertisement it was specifically stated "Start up salary Rs. 7,000/- to 9,000/- per month + incentives and free transport. 100% placement record." The case of the respondents/complainants in the complaints filed by them that it was on that assurance/representation they had paid the fees and had joined the course in question. As already stated, respondent No. 2 was impleaded in the complaints, filed by the respondents/complainants, before the District Forum as O.P. No. 1. In the reply/written version, filed on behalf of respondent No. 2/O.P. No. 1 before the District Forum, it was specifically stated that the advertisements for the course were given by the appellant and respondent No. 2 was only a franchisee of the appellant. The above plea, taken by respondent No. 2/O.P. No. 1, before the District Forum has gone on record unrebutted and unchallenged. In the presence of the above fact, it cannot be reasonably believed that the appellant has no concern with the advertisements/repre-sentations so made, on the basis of which the respondents/complainants were allured to join the course in question and had paid hefty fees. It is also apparent on the basis of material on record that there was decidely deficiency in training course also. The same was not as assured/represented. The order being impugned in the present proceedings is a well reasoned order. The same, as a matter of fact, suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The above appeals, filed by the appellant, are, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merit dismissal. Accordingly, the same are dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.