Marksoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs Dilip Singh Shekhawat

VINAY Kumar This Revision Petition is filed by M/s. Marksoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as MIT) and others against concurrent findings and orders of Consumer Protection Forum, Jaipur and of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The matter arose in a complaint filed by the present Respondent, Dilip Singh Shekhawat before the District Forum.

THE facts, as seen from the record, are that the Complainant, who was working in Saudi Arabia and on a visit to India, was attracted by an advertisement issued by the revision petitioners. It was captioned ''We promise you an overseas job else Rs.2.25 Lacs ''. The advertisement introduced the revision petitioners/MIT as MIT, an international training & development company with IT presence in 7 countries worldwide. It was also advertised that on completion of two courses out of three run by them, there shall be a guarantee for appointment or Rs.2.25 lack shall be paid. The Complainant entered into an agreement with RP/OP and paid in all Rs.62500/- as fee. He completed one of the two programmes on 4.4.2001 and the second on 5.7.2001. He also completed a third programme on 14.9.2001. His complaint was that even after completing all the three courses, the Complainant was neither given the appointment nor paid Rs.2.25 lack, as agreed. He alleged it as unfair trade practice on the part of the RP/OPs. An agreement bond was signed by the Complainant on 26.3.2001 with OP No.3 / Ajay Sharma. The order of the District Forum specifically referred to condition nos.6 and 9 in this agreement, which read as follows:- "6. That MIT shall provide a job for the eligible trainee as mentioned and will inform the trainee about the said job opportunity for his/her employment. It is assured that the job opportunity shall be either abroad or in a Multi-National company in India or abroad. "

"9. That in case no job or service is offered to the eligible trainee, with in the duration of 18 months from the date of admission, then the MIT shall pay a minimum Rs.6000/- per month for six months after successfully completion of certifications as mentioned in clause No.2 and then a sum of Rs.150,000 only (Rupees One Lac Fifty thousand Only) in lump sum to the said trainee after the end of 18 months. After paying this amount the bond shall stand nullified. "

CONSIDERING these two conditions, the District Forum observed that - "Vide appointment letter dated 18.9.2001 the complainant was given appointment in their own Company on payment of Rs.3060/- and other allowances on the post of Technical Executive and the complainant accepting the appointment worked there from 11.1.2001 till 31.12.2001; but whether this appointment was in accordance to the conditions of the agreement dated 26.3.2001. Under condition No.9 of the agreement comes into play only when the successful trainee is not given appointment within 18 months from the date of admission in the course. According to the contention of the respondents the complainant was given appointment to the post of Technical Executive therefore, the condition No.9 has no importance. In the case under consideration condition No.6 of the agreement is important wherein the respondent Company gave assurance to give appointment to the trainee in the Country or abroad or in any multinational company. In consideration of the Forum the complainant was given appointment in the own company of the respondents is not in accordance with the condition No.6 of the agreement because the respondent Company works for running different computer training courses and there is no mention in the agreement to this effect that the respondent Company is included in multinational companies as per condition No.6 of the agreement. Under condition No.3 the respondent Company has mentioned but there is mention of it to be as per the agreement. In the circumstances of the case in opinion of the Forum it has not been proved to give appointment to the complainant by the respondent as per the agreement dated 26.3.2001 and thus, there has been deficiency in services of the respondent Company. "

IN the impugned order, the State Commission has arrived at a similar conclusion and observed - "In our view, the advertisement which was published by the company there was promise in it of the kind that they shall be provided opportunities in multi national companies or jobs overseas. In case someone does not get the job for 18 months, in that situation also the company shall pay Rs.6000/- per months for 6 months to the complainant and thereafter he was to be paid one time amount Rs.1.50 Lacs. If we do not agree in our view with the contentions that the complainant was not given services on Rs.6,000/- per month in the appellant company, the conditions of the agreement are not fulfilled and the contention made in the advertised news is proved to be true. The appellants have not been able to satisfy us that they provided any opportunity to the complainant for job in any multi national company or job overseas or they ever offered any such job to him. Providing service on Rs.6000/- per month in their own company is not important because in the event of not having any opportunity of the services this amount was mandatorily to be paid to him as has been mentioned in the agreement. Thus, we are agree that false assurances are given to unemployed candidates through advertisements and keeping them in dark procuring fees from them in the name of giving admission to the courses but later on all such promises are not completed. It was clear mentioned in the advertisement that the applicant shall be provided opportunities for job in any multi national companies or overseas or in India. But the appellants have not been able to prove nothing in this regard as to when they provided such opportunities and where to the complainant. "

In the Revision Petition filed before this Commission, the MIT has challenged the above concurrent view of the District Forum and the State Commission. The records filed by the petitioner have been carefully considered and the petitioner ''s counsel, Mr Devendra Mohan Mathur has been heard. The main contention is that the complainant had not acquired the requisite qualification and thereby failed to acquire the eligibility. He had to have a graduation degree for it. It is also contended that by accepting the job offer made by the RP/OP the respondent/complainant had abandoned the job placement agreement.

IT needs to be observed here that both the above contentions are in the arena of findings of fact, which cannot be challenged in a Revision Petition. The power of this Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act is limited to intervention to the extent, the State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. However, it is also pointed out that neither the revision petition nor the arguments of their counsels have referred to any evidence tendered on these two points before the fora below. No reference is made to any evidence before the fora below to show that the respondent/Complainant had accepted the offer of RP/OP in lieu of placement promised to him. It is also not the case of the revision petitioners that the evidence adduced in this behalf was misconstrued or ignored by the fora below. On the contrary, the State Commission has categorically observed that the question whether the Complainant was a graduate or not, was not an issue to be decided at that stage of the matter because, at the time of admission, if the Complainant did not have the requisite eligibility/qualification, he should not have been allowed admission to the course. Therefore, the two contentions of the revision petitioner do not merit any further consideration.

IN the result, revision petition no.1285 of 2013 is held to be devoid of any merit. It is consequently dismissed for the same reasons. No order as to costs.