UPTRON INDIA LIMITED vs SHEEMA

THIS appeal has been preferred by the Appellant M/s. Uptron India Limited challenging the Judgment and Order dated 14.10.1993 passed in C.D.F. Case No. 337 of 1993.

IN the said C.D.F. Case No. 337 of 1993, the Ld. Calcutta District Forum awarded that the Appellant and the respondent No. 2 should published the result of the final examination of the advance Post Graduate Course in Computer training and to confer the certificate of the Course to the complainant who is the respondent No. 1 in this appeal within two months thereof. The Ld. C.D.F. further awarded the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and compensation to the complainant/respondent No. 1 for the loss suffered by her within one month from the date of the order passed by the Id. Calcutta District Forum.

The brief history of the case is that the respondent No. 1 opened a franchise for imparting computer training to the students for which the appellant and his associate respondent No. 2 admitted some students for the computer training course in which the complainant/respondent No. 1 was one of the candidates.

THE complainant/respondent No. 1 paid Rs. 11,500/- in 5 instalments for getting training from the franchise opened by the appellant and the respondent No. 2. The complainant/respondent No. 1 alleged various deficiencies in service rendered by the appellant and respondent No. 2 such as the faculty members were inexperienced and insufficiently trained and that they did not possess the required professional qualifications and that there was mis-management and lack of adequate resources and acute shortage of hardware and software which were commonly used elsewhere and that basic facilities like the printer were not available and that there were not able to provide functional mini computer, as a result of which necessary practical experienced could not be obtained.

IT was further alleged by her that the machines were subjected to frequent break-down and that the software used were illegally copied and frequent virus attacks lead to complete wipe out of students from work. It is the further allegation of the complainant/respondent No. 1 that the floppy disc for taking back put of the projects were available to and the printer was inadequate and ribon was wanting. The Centre failed to solve the problems of the students. The Centre Manager and Uptron A.C.L. did not take any action. It was further allegation of the complainant/respondent No. 1 that the final examination was conducted on 6.12.1992 but the result was not published by the Centre was involved in litigation with its franchise, the respondent No. 2 formerly known as KAS computer.

IT was further alleged that the complainant/respondent No. 1 was not provided with the certificate Scholarship and job placement even after two and half years, although the complainant/respondent No. 1 qualified herself in the first track Shcolarship examination held on 11.1.1992 and she was entitled to a job in a reputed company as per advertisement of A.C.L. and that who was not one of the job students with centre with good performance.

THE complainant/respondent No. 1 is aggrieved with the insufficiency, delay and negligence of Uptron A.C.L. who had the moral responsibility to pay salary if the course had been completed in the time, as she was given the promise of job placement. THE appellant and the respondent No. 2 both filed a written objection denying all materials allegations specially challenging the maintainability of this case and contended that the education does not fall within the ambit and scope of the Consumer Protection Act and the complainant/respondent No. 1 is not a consumer as defined under the Act. Both the appellant and the respondent No. 2 denied all material allegations raised by the complainant/respondent No. 1.

The Ld. Calcutta District Forum considering pros and cons of the entire matter allowed the petition of complaint and awarded as aforesaid.

THE appellant on the ground of appeal contended that the Ld. Calcutta District Forum erred in Law in passing the order dated 14.10.1993 and that the ld. Calcutta District Forum erred in law directing the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant/respondent No. 1 for the loss suffered by her within one month from the date of the order and that the Calcutta District Forum erred in law directing the appellant herein to publish the result of the final examination of the advance post graduate course and to confer the certificate of the course to the complainant/respondent No. 1 within 2 months thereof and that the Calcutta District Forum erred in law in entertaining the complaint petition since education does not come within definition of goods and/or within the definition of service and that the Ld. Calcutta District Forum while passing the impugned order dated 14.10.1993 did not consider Clause 47 of the deed of agreement wherein it was specifically mentioned that the promoters, the respondent No. 2 would be wholly and exclusively responsible to operate the computer education centre in accordance with applicable laws including such relating to Consumer Protection Act and that uptron who should not be called in question in any manner and that the Id. Calcutta District Forum while passing the order did not consider Clause 7 of the agreement wherein it was specifically mentioned that the promoters shall insure recruitment training and employment of the faculty student and that the Id. Calcutta District Forum while passing the impugned order dated 14.10.1993 did not consider that the answer scripts of the final examination conducted and December, 1992 by the respondent No. 2 were received by the appellant only on 4.2.1993 and the result of the final examination was sent on 19.4.1993 to the franchise, the respondent No. 2 for publication and that the Calcutta District Forum ought to have hole that the appellants were in no way responsible for commitment made by the franchise respondent No. 2 to their students which was outside the norms and guidelines prescribed by the appellants and that the appellants herein neither authorised the franchise centre nor issued any guidelines to offering job guarantee to any students and that the order dated 14.10.1993 passed by the Id. Calcutta District Forum is otherwise bad and liable to be set aside by the Hon''ble State Commission. The complainant/respondent No. 1 has not filed any written objection in the appeal against the allegations made by the respondent No. 1.

THE respondent No. 2 however filed written objection making fully responsible to the appellant for deficiency in service rendered by them in this regard. Practically as regards deficiency in service on behalf of the appellant and the respondent No. 2, it is admitted position by both the appellant and the respondent No. 2 to each of them makes responsible to each other for such deficiency in services. Although both of them have challenged the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the education does not fall within ambit of the Consumer Protection Act inasmuch as the education is neither a good purchased for consideration nor service hired for consideration, nor the complainant/respondent No. 1 is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. We are of opinion that imparting education against payment for consideration is definitely hiring of service of the organisers who organised the franchise for imparting education on computer training course and any latches and/or negligence in imparting education to the students who took admission and paid fees as consideration is definitely deficiency in service and the appellant/respondent No. 2 are held responsible for such deficiency in service and are liable to compensate the loss suffered by the complainant/respondent No. 1. It is not known to us that whether in the meantime the result of the final examination of the advance post graduate course has been published or not or she has been conferred the certificate of the course of the advance post graduate course as per order dated 14.10.1993 passed by the Id. Calcutta District Forum. If not, then, the certificate of the advance post graduate course for computer training be issued in favour of the complainant/respondent No. 1 at once forthwith.

IN view of admitted deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and the respondent No. 2 they are jointly liable for payment of the compensation to the complainant/respondent No. 1. The complainant/respondent No. 1 being a student in the computer course is not obliged to know the relationship between the appellant/respondent No. 2 arising out of the agreement entered into by and between them. The dispute between the appellant and the respondent No. 2 are the internal affairs but the complainant/respondent No. 1 has no role to play in the matter.

SO, we hold the same view to that of the C.D.F. that the complainant/respondent No. 1 is entitled to get compensation for the loss suffered by her and also for the harassment, torture and mental agony suffered by the complainant/respondent No. 1 for such a long period. We further observe that the conduct of the appellant/respondent No. 2 amounts to unfair trade practice inasmuch as that by aluring the students to create their bright and prosperous future, they attract the students and cause them to pay huge amount of tuition fees but ultimately all it become futile due to unfair trade practice adopted by the organiser.

We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and confirm the judgment and order dated 14.12.1993 passed by the Id. Calcutta District Forum in C.D.F. Case No. 337 of 1993.

THE payment of compensation by the appellant and the respondent No. 1 be made equally to the complainant/respondent No. 1 within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. THEre will be no order as to the cost. Appeal dismissed.