N I I T LTD Vs. SHASHANK RASTOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of learned counsel appearing on both sides the matter was finally heard on merits. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner urged before us that the complainant/respondent had deposited a sum of Rs.16,500 on 6.5.2004 for 5 months CIT course which was undergone by him; that the respondent/complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.49,500 on 11.7.2004 for ANIIT which course was for 1 1/2 years and it was completed by him on 13.1.2007; that on 23.9.2006, the respondent/complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 18,300 for GNIIT practical training, but the respondent/complainant did not turn up for the said training and as such, the petitioner could not be held liable. He also submitted before us that the complainant/respondent had failed to prove that NUT had not provided the on site training inasmuch as it was the respondent/ complainant who had not himself turned up for the purpose of said training. He, however, submitted that the petitioner was willing to give necessary training for GNIIT but, according to him, the petitioner was not liable to pay any compensation as ordered by the Fora below.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent/complainant was interested in getting the training and pressed for compensation.

(3.) Admittedly, the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.18,300 on 23.9.2006 for GNIIT practical training and he had completed ANIIT on 13.1.2007. This means that the respondent/complainant was very much interested in GNIIT training. The case of the complainant is that the said training was not provided to him by the petitioner. As against these averments, the OP in its reply filed before the District Forum, had stated that the complainant, after completing 2 years classroom teaching, did not turn up for profession practice despite various reminders sent by the OPs to him. We had asked the Learned Senior Counsel to place before us "various reminders" which were stated to have been sent by the OP to the respondent/complainant. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact no written reminders were sent, but reminders were orally given over telephone. We cannot accept this explanation given by the learned Senior Counsel in respect of the categorical statement made in reply that the respondent/complainant did not turn up for profession practice despite various reminders sent to him by the OP. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there has been deficiency on the part of the petitioner in not providing necessary training in GNIIT course to the respondent/complainant. However, we find that compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 awarded by the District Forum is excessive and calls for interference in exercise of revisional powers. In our opinion, a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 would be just, fair and equitable.