RAJINDER SINGH SALUJA Vs. DATAPRO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Rajinder Singh Saluja lodged the complaint with this Commission alleging the deficiency in the service of Data pro Information Technology, Bombay the opposite party. The opposite party runs a Computer Training Course at Bombay. The complainant had joined the institution of the opposite party as a student for the training of advanced diploma in Computer Software System Analysis and Design. The complainant joined the training course of the opposite party on 13.6.87 and had paid fees for his training Rs.3300/- to the opposite party. The training classes were conducted between 6.15 p. m. to 8.30 p. m. three times a week. According to complainant, the aforesaid fees included, teaching, training, coaching and the examination which were to be conducted by the Maharashtra State Technical Board. The complainant alleged that opposite party was obliged to communicate to every student including the complainant, the dates of examinations, written and oral. The complainant further alleged that the opposite party did not communicate to him the date of viva-voce examination in which he was to appear. The complainant further alleged that he appeared in theory papers in February, 1988 for the examination of the Board but due to the failure on the part of the opposite party, to intimate the date of viva-voce, he had to lose a valuable year of his career and had to suffer financial loss. According to complainant, the failure on the part of the opposite party to intimate the date of viva-voce examination is a deficiency in the service of the opposite party, and, therefore, he claimed Rs.1,06,852/- as total compensation.

(2.) In reply, the opposite party denied its responsibility to communicate the dates of written and oral examination to the students appearing through their institution. It is further pleaded that there is no express agreement or any covenant, custom or usage to inform the dates of the examination individually to every student. According to opposite party, there is lack of diligence on the part of the complainant to appear for the vivavoce examination.

(3.) We have heard complainant in person and Shri G. B. Paul with Jitendar Shah, the Executive Director of the opposite party. We have also perused the relevant documents. The defence of the opposite party is not only devoid of any sense but is contrary to the service undertaken by it to impart training to the students who joined the institution as Part-time students. The responsibility of the institution does not come to an end merely by training and teaching the students but also extends to properly informing the students about the dates of written and oral examinations, since the nature of the institution is such that those students who attend the classes for a particular period in the evening can only be contacted by post for any communication particularly, when the training period is over. In the instant case, we find that the complainant who appeared for the written examination could not appear for the viva-voce examination due to the failure on the part of the opposite party to intimate to him the dates. The Course in which the examinations were to be held does not appear to be much advertised in Press like S. S. C. and H. S. C. and University Examinations. It is, therefore, incumbent on the part of the opposite party to intimate the dates of written as well as oral examinations to every student who had paid fees of their training. The say of the opposite party that there is no covenant or usage to intimate the dates of examination to the student's is also false in view of the fact that the opposite party by letter dated 29.6.1989 did intimate by post its students the date of viva-voce examination scheduled to be held. It is mentioned therein that because of some miscommunication on the part of postal authorities he could not attend. This writing shows that there was precedent of informing by post. A zeroxed copy of that letter issued by opposite party is placed on record. The opposite party failed to place before us any evidence to demonstrate that similar intimation was given to the complainant. Thus, in our view, the claim of the opposite party that they are not obliged under a contract or covenant to intimate the dates of examination to the students is baseless and false. In our view, although there is no contract, it is the duty of the opposite party to intimate the students appearing through their institution the dates of the written and oral examinations for the benefit of the students.