RAVI JOSHI vs TATA INFOTECH LTD.

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 24.10.2002 in Case No. 91/2002 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called as the Distt. Forum for short) dismissing the complaint of the complainant/appellant.

RELEVANT facts no longer in dispute stated in brief are: that the complainant/appellant has joined Visual Basic-6 and Oracle -8 Course with the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The duration of the said course was three months. Rs. 6,000/- fee by way of consideration was paid by the appellant to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The grievance of the complainant/appellant is that the course was imparted for 43 days only but the said course was left incomplete and he was asked to discontinue the course by the respondents. The complainant, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to refund his fee with interest thereon.

The respondents in their joint reply refuted the averments as above. According to their averments they never asked the complainant to discontinue to come for obtaining training towards the course. They had averred that they are still ready and willing to impart the training as had been promised by them. However, the complainant himself was at fault in not continuing the course and training.

THE learned Distt. Forum found that the complainant has not established that he was prevented by the respondents from continuing with the training or course. THErefore, there was no deficiency in service on their part. THE complaint was accordingly dismissed. The learned Counsel for the complainant/appellant strenuously urged that the complainant/appellant wanted to continue with the course and training. However, they had no teacher for imparting training for the course of Oracle-8, hence the respondents discontinued the training resulting in the appellant not completing the course. As against this, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents have never prevented the appellant from completing the training course. In fact, they were and are willing to give complete training as promised by them. However, the complainant/appellant himself was at fault in not continuing with the training after attending the same for 46 days.

AS noticed earlier, the attendance sheet-copy of which is marked as Annexure D-5 indicates that the complainant/appellant attended the course from 2.8.2001 to 9.10.2001. On counting the number of days, for which the training was so obtained and in which the complainant/appellant''s attendance was marked counts to 43 days and not 46 days as has been averred by the respondents. However, there is no material on record to indicate that the respondents prevented the complainant/appellant to secure and complete the remaining portion of the training and the course. It has been urged by the complainant/appellant that the appellant verbally protested against discontinuance of the course. However, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had verbally refused to accede to his verbal request to permit him to continue with the course. However, as mentioned earlier, respondents have categorically stated that the complainant/appellant was never prevented from continuing the training and course. Had the respondents prevented the appellant from continuing with the course, the natural conduct on his part was to lodge a written protest. He had not done so. In the circumstances, there is no reason to discredit the stand of the respondents, that they never prevented the complainant/appellant from completing the course. The finding as above of the learned District Forum appears to be based on proper appreciation of material placed on record and circumstances of the case. It is, therefore, clear that the complainant/appellant could not succeed in his complaint. However, the complainant if so chooses, he may attend the remaining part of the training course with the respondents as has been offered by the respondents. With the direction as above, this appeal is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs as incurred. Appeal dismissed.