JAWAHAR GOYAL vs ASHU RANI

IT is an appeal against the order dated 28.1.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Bathinda (hereinafter called the District Forum.)

BRIEF facts stated in the complaint are that respondent No. 2 (opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum) (hereinafter called opposite party No. 1) was a service-oriented company and deals in the computer education to the students against consideration and the appellant (opposite party No. 2 before the District Forum) (hereinafter called opposite party No. 2) and Baljinder Singh, NIIT Bathinda Centre, G.T. Road, near Bus Stand, Bathinda now c/o Procad Technology Centre, G.T. Road, Bathinda (opposite party No. 3 before the District Forum) (not impleaded as a party in this appeal) (hereinafter called opposite party No. 3) were its branch offices and Principal Officers of opposite party No. 1 at Bathinda. Allured by the advertisement of the opposite parties, respondent No.1-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) along with her father approached opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 at Bathinda for admission in NIIT Course. After having passed the faculty test, she was admitted in the two years computer course in NIIT comprised four semesters, which included PWC+SW 1 Course. Opposite parties conveyed rough estimate to the complainant that about Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- shall be charged from her for two years NIIT course. She had deposited Rs. 5,450/- as admission fee and registration charges vide receipt No. 3329/2105 dated 5.8.2000 with opposite party No. 2. Opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 had conveyed to her that one month course Swift India will start on 16.8.2000 and accordingly, she joined the above said course on 16.8.2000, which was duly passed by her. It is then alleged in the complaint that opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 along with one Miss Priyanka conveyed to her that course/Semester-C had been dropped from the two years'' NIIT Course as they had no staff for C-Semester at Bathinda and further conveyed to her that now the complainant had to appear only in three semesters i.e. A, B & D to which she objected to and conveyed to the opposite parties that her two years course in computer education shall not be completed without C-Semester/Course. Opposite parties conveyed to her that if during the above said period of two years requisite staff becomes available then the same shall be started at Bathinda. It is further alleged in the complaint that reposing confidence in the opposite parties, she continued to study in the above said Institution with the hope that everything shall be according to the commitment made by the opposite parties. The opposite parties again got deposited Rs. 3,100/- from her vide receipt No. 3697/2105 dated 6.2.2001, as instalment payment. She requested the opposite parties to give the final details of the amount to be charged from her for two years course. She completed her A-semester from the above said institution, which she had passed, but the result card was not supplied by the opposite parties. Again as per requirement of the opposite parties, she had deposited Rs. 3,000/- on 7.4.2001 vide receipt No. 3788/2105, Rs. 1000/- on 7.5.2001 vide receipt No. 3820/2105 and Rs. 2,000/- on 7.6.2001 vide receipt No. 3866/2105. It was then alleged in the complaint by the complainant that opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 had conveyed to her in the month of June, 2001 that the institution was running into heavy losses and they advised her to get herself enrolled at other branch office of NIIT at Patiala, which was being run by the same person i.e., Mr. Jawahar Goyal, for the remaining study. She then alleged in the complaint that the opposite parties had played a fraud with her and had not fulfilled the commitment made to the complainant. She had to waste more than one year in the above said course without any fault of hers and had wasted more than Rs. 14,000/-. She had written numerous letters to the opposite parties to fulfil their commitment but all in vain. Hence the complaint for directing the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 14,550/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit till payment and to pay her a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum was proceeded ex parte. Opposite party No. 3 was deleted on a statement made by the complainant that she did not seek any relief from opposite party No. 3.

Opposite party No. 2 in its reply filed before the District Forum stated that the complainant was admitted in six months''course and not in two years'' course. The complainant also being weak in English was first advised to join a basic course that is SW1 and if she fared well then could continue in 6 months'' course. The complainant after inquiry and entire satisfaction, joined SW-1 course and completed successfully and thereafter complainant joined six months'' course known as SEM-A. The fee structure for SW-1 and SEM-A was Rs. 2,499/- + Rs. 12,650/- respectively in addition to Rs. 500/- as admission fee to be paid in instalments against an official receipt from NIIT. It was further stated in the reply that it was decided by the management not to renew licence after 31.8.2001 in view of heavy losses being suffered by the management and all the students were informed through a notice on the notice board in the month of June, 2001, but no objection was raised by the complainant. It was further pleaded that the complainant was a student for SW1 + 6 months, so question of any further service did not arise. The course for which the complainant was admitted was completed. TXpt. was given. However, the complainant was allowed a discount of 25% on 6 months'' course, as a special case in view of circumstances explained by her father. In the end, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

AFTER having gone through the record and after having heard the learned Counsel for the complainant and opposite party No. 2, the District Forum allowed the complaint. Hence this appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Jagdish Prasad. Representative, father of respondent No.1-complainant Ashu Rani and have gone through the detailed order of the District Forum as well as the evidence on the file. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum.

IT is not denied that the complainant had joined the course on 16.8.2000 and had deposited Rs. 5,450/- on 5.8.2000, Rs. 3,100/- on 6.2.2001, Rs. 3,000/- on 7.4.2001, Rs, 1,000/- on 7.5.2001 and Rs. 2,000/- on 7.6.2001 vide receipts Ex. C3, Ex. C5 to Ex. C8 respectively. In Ex. C3, the programme is mentioned as PWC+SW1. This fact is corroborated from the acknowledgement (Ex. C-9), wherein it is clearly mentioned that the programme was PWC+SWI, Ex. C-13 is the photocopy of pamphlet of opposite parties, which shows that the programme ''PWC'' was of 104 weeks'' duration and consisted of four semesters. According to opposite party No. 2, complainant remained student of the centre from 16.8.2000 to 31.7.2001. From this very fact that the complainant remained student of the centre for about one year, it is shown that the course was not of six months'' duration but more than six months'' duration. The Counsel for the appellant has failed to explain that if the course was of 6 months'' duration, then why the complainant remained the student of the centre for more than 6 months. In these circumstances, the District Forum has rightly held that the complainant had joined the course ''PWC+SW1'' which was of two years'' duration. The next argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that as per Student Hand Book (Ex-C-14), Rule 16.4, notice of one month was required before closure of the centre and opposite party No. 2 had given notice (Ex. R-2) before closing the centre and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is also without any substance. Rule 16.4 of Student Hand Book, reads as under : "16.4. Communications regarding changes in specifications of services provided by NIIT or changes in Student Rules, will be displayed on the Notice Board for a minimum period of one month. Any objections to these changes by any student should be brought to the attention of the Centre Head within this period. A student will be considered to have accepted the charges unless such an objection is received."

The perusal of the above said rule indicates that notice of one month was required regarding changes in specifications of services provided by NIIT, or changes in Student Rules. This rule did not authorize opposite party No. 2 to close the centre. The Counsel for opposite party No. 2 appellant failed to show any rule that the centre could be closed without completing the course. In view of the documentary evidence on the file the District Forum has rightly held that the complainant had joined the course of PWC+SW1, which was of 104 weeks'' duration and not HWD+SW1 of six months'' duration, as alleged by opposite party No. 2 and the opposite parties closed the centre after about one year without completing the course and due to the closure of the centre, the complainant had to waste one year besides suffering mental tension and agony as she was unable to procure employment without completion of the course. Finding no fault with the order of the District Forum, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed with costs, which are quantified as Rs. 1,000/-. Appeal dismissed.