SUJAY D PAREKH Vs. APPLE INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS complaint is filed by the complainant against Apple Industries Ltd, Andheri (E), Mumbai -93. Five complainants have jointly filed this complaint. According to the complainants they had joined three years computer course with Apple Computer Education in their Santacruz training centre. It was the branch of Apple Industries Ltd. At the time of joining the course from December 1991 to June 1992, the complainants were given to understand that the said 3 years course was the best one in software computer system and that they would get very gainful employments, after its completion. The opposite party even guaranteed that they would get the employment for the complainants if they did not get a job anywhere. Allured by the above prospects of employment they joined training institute. The complainants pleaded that they had paid hefty fees to join the above course. They pleaded that they had borrowed money from the bank. However, their hopes dashed to the ground because of faulty and defective training given by the opp.party. In the year 1996 they found that their course had not been completed and they were given training of obsolete topics. They therefore, addressed a letter dated 25.9.1996 to the opp. party listing out their grievances. Their grievance in nutshell are mentioned in paras 3 and 4 of the complaint. Their courses were not completed within three years. There has been irregular lecture schedule, curriculum was skipped now and, then, and out -dated technology was being taught in the institute. There had been no job placements due to teaching of outdated technology. Overall there was a course dis satisfaction amongst the complainants. Because of non -completion of course in time the complainants interest and enthusiasm in the field of computer technology got faded. There was improper library facility. Computer system employed by opposite party training institute was faulty. Computers were not having basic facilities like anti virus vaccines to protect the system from fatal virus attacks. There was carreer degradation. There was irregular supply of courseware, internal examination were not conducted many a time. Examination schedule was highly improper. There was adoption of double standards. These grievances were not addressed by opp. party and therefore the complainants pleaded that they are entitled to get compensation due to deficiency in service rendered by the opposite party. They claimed Rs. 14 lakh and some odd amount from the opposite party.

(2.) WRITTEN statement was filed by the opposite party. In the written statement of opposite party Sr. Manager (Legal) of opposite party pleaded that opp. party is a global information technology training and consulting organisation and Aptech Ltd. was doing business of imparting education of information and technology. Aptech Computer Education, a division of the opposite party has established itself as a leading computer education provider of Asia. It denied each and every allegation made in the complaint. It pleaded that the complainants has approached this Forum to enrich themselves by making unlawful gains. They had sent one letter to the opposite party dated 6.1.1997 (Exh. C) by making it as an instrument, they have filed this complaint, which is nothing but an abuse of process of law. They have filed this complaint with mala fide and dishonest intention and with a view to malign the reputation of the opposite party in the market. The opposite party pleaded that allegations made by the complainant are absolutely baseless and unwarranted. All the education centres run by the opposite party are equipped with modern software and have a well managed library with latest information and hardware upgradations. They are holding the examinations to boost the confidence of their students on regular basis on holidays only with an intention to facilitate students to appear for the said exams. They pleaded that the complaint is absolutely barred by limitation. They further pleaded that till today many students have got good placements and they had never disputed the quality of education imparted to them. The complainants have filed false and frivolous complaint by making false allegation of deficiency in service. The opposite party denied that it had given guarantee to the complainant for employment on completion of its training. They pleaded that they impart the education in information and technology and, therefore, the students, who have completed courses have no difficulty to get employment, but they have never given guarantee to provide jobs to the complainants. The opposite party pleaded that they are not aware that the complainant had borrowed the money from the bank to get themselves enrolled for the courses, they conducted. So, the opp. party denied that there has been deficiency in service as alleged by the complainants on pages 3 -4 of the complaint. According to opp party timely examinations were held, there was supply of regular courseware, no double standards were applied to the students and complaint as a whole is a false and frivolous and, therefore, it should be dismissed with cost.

(3.) REJOINDER was filed by one Mr. Bhushan Anand Motiani, reiterating the allegations made in the complaint. On considering the material placed on record this Commission was pleased to dismiss the complaint by judgment dated 2.8.2002. Aggrieved thereby only complainant No. 1/Shri Dhirender Bhardwaj has filed F.A. No. 513/02. On hearing rival Counsel for both the parties, Hon ble National Commission partly allowed the appeal and order passed by this Commission was set aside and this Commission was directed to decide the matter on merits after giving opportunity to both the parties to lead their evidence. As such, on remand we are deciding this complaint afresh. After remand, Aptech Ltd. has joined as opposite party No. 2 because opposite party No. 2 has taken over some part of business of Apple India Ltd. Opposite party filed written statement on 26.4.1997 and pleaded that Apple India Ltd./opposite party No. 2 herein thus acquired all the assets, liabilities, rights and obligations of the information technology division of the opposite party No. 1 on 1.7.1995 and continued the business of computer education thereafter. This was done in terms of order passed Hon ble High Court dated 19.6.1996 in company petition No. 156/96. So, it was the opposite party No. 2, who was exclusively liable for whatever deficiencies and for meeting allegation of complainant and opp. party No. l had nothing to do with the said courses. Opposite party No. 1 pleaded that it was aware of the facts mentioned in the complaint. The allegations were pertaining to computer training course, which was managed and conducted by opposite party No. 2. opposite party No. 2 did not file written statement despite service. Complainant filed affidavit -cum -evidence and rejoinder to written statement.