NETWORLD vs PARAMJOT SINGH

THIS is an appeal received by transfer from Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 6. 5. 2002 in complaint case No. 38 of 2002, Sh. Paramjot Singh v. Networld and Another.

BRIEFLY stated the averments made in the complaint are that the Complainant had passed his 10+2 examination in March 1994 and he was desirous of further education in computer courses. Accordingly, in response to an advertisement by OPs, the Complainant sought admission in one of the consumer courses offered by OPs. At the time of admission, he deposited a sum of Rs. 23,000 through various receipts with the OPs but the OPs failed to commence the requisite classes to complete computer course for which the Complainant had sought admission. Later on, the Complainant came to know that the OPs had closed their business. Thus, it has been alleged that OPs are guilty of resorting to unfair trade practice in not providing the due education in computers for which Rs. 23,000 had been received and this resulted in ruining of his career. Therefore, in the complaint, it was prayed that OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 23,000 paid by the Complainant and also pay another Rs. ;50,000 by way of damages along with cost of litigation amounting to Rs. 10,000 with interest @ 18% per annum. The OPs did not appear despite service through publication and, therefore, they were proceeded against ex parte.

From the perusal of the record on file, the learned District Forum came to the conclusion that the Complainant had established payment only Rs. 14,000. The learned District Forum, however, held the view that the Complainant had successfully proved his case of OPs indulging in unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and therefore, vide the impugned order, it directed the OPs to refund the Complainant an amount of Rs. 14,000 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit of filing the complaint till its realization. OPs were also burdened with cost amounting to Rs. 2,000 and they were further directed to comply with the order within one month from the receipt of copy of this order.

AGGRIEVED by this order of learned District Forum, the OPs had filed this appeal before Punjab State Commission and the same has now been transferred to this Commission by the orders of Hon''ble National Commission. Sh. Arun Bakshi, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Appellant/ops whereas Sh. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate represented the Respondent/complainant. Mr. Arun Bakshi, learned Counsel for the Appellants/ops submitted that the OPs could not present their case before the learned District Forum as they had closed their office before the issue of summons and further stated that the proclamation did not come to the notice of the Appellants and, therefore, under those circumstances, OPs were proceeded against ex parte and the version of OPs could not be placed before the learned District Forum. He brought to the notice of the Bench that the Complainant had himself placed on file Annexures A-1 and A-2 with the appeal, which are the test result of the Complainant and certification given to the Complainant. He submitted that in view of these two documents produced by the Complainant himself, it stands proved that the course was duly conducted by the OPs and due certificates were issued to the Complainant and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and, therefore, the impugned order needs to be set aside.

IN response, Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the Respondent/complainant reiterated that the course was not conducted as promised and further submitted that the Complainant had produced Annexures A-1 and A-2 of the appeal (C-4 and C-5 of the complaint) to prove that OPs had indulged in unfair trade practice by issuing these certificates which have no value. He further drew the attention of the Bench to these documents, which neither contained signatures of any person nor is there any seal of the department or office or institution on these documents. The learned Counsel also submitted before the Bench that the course was to commence in February and it was to be for a period of six months but the OPs closed its business in April itself and, therefore, the contention of OPs that the course was properly conducted for the full duration and certificates were given is belied. He emphatically submitted that the impugned order is just and legal and the appeal has no merit. We have gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The main contention of the Complainant is that the course for which he had paid money to the OPs was not conducted properly and no proper certificates were issued by the institution. There is nothing on record placed by OPs in the shape of some attendance register or any affidavit of the teaching staff, etc. to prove the factum of the classes having been conducted as per the programme for which the Complainant had got himself enrolled. In this view of the matter and based on the affidavit of the Complainant on record, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the computer course, for which the Complainant had taken admission, was not conducted properly. Further, the only submission made by OPs in this context is that Annexures A-1 and A-2 of the appeal prove that the classes were conducted and tests were taken and subsequently certificates were issued. However, after a critical perusal of these documents, we agree with the contention of the Respondent/complainant that these documents have no value at all either as a piece of evidence or as an authority of an educational certificate because these are neither signed nor is the date of these documents indicated anywhere nor does the document carry any seal to confirm that these documents pertain to the Appellants/ops and have been validly issued after due tests. In this context, we cannot give any credence to the argument put forth by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that since these documents are computer generated, they did not bear any signature because the documents nowhere carry the endorsement that these being computer generated documents do not need signature, as is done in case of computer generates statements/documents, etc. In our considered view, this is a clear-cut case where educational institution has taken unsuspecting student for royal ride by resorting to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service. Such institutions are playing havoc with the careers of the students who seek admission in such institutions in the hope of subsequently getting a good job. Therefore, such act of these institutions need to be condemned in the strongest terms and they need to be penalized for such lapses. In this view of the matter, we find that no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned District Forum and, therefore, it need not interference.

CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is dismissed with costs, which we quantify as Rs. 5,000 and the impugned order is upheld. There is, however, an ambiguity in the executive part of the order regarding the date from which the interest is to accrue. It is clarified that OPs shall refund to the Complainant an amount of Rs. 14,000 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of its deposit till its realization. Subject to this modification, the impugned order is modified.

COPIES of this judgment be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.