INOVAT Vs. POONAM SACHDEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all the above mentioned appeals are directed against a common order, have common facts and also raise common questions of law for consideration, the same, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the appellant, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of all the above mentioned appeals, briefly stated, are that the above named respondents had filed separate complaints under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). In the complaints, filed by the respondents, the respondents had impleaded respondent No.2 (M/s. Amicable Infotech Private Limited) as O. P. No.1 and the appellant was impleaded as O. P. No.2. In the above said complaints it was averred by the respondents that allured by advertisement issued by the appellant, the respondents had joined a Diploma Course in the Indian Institute of Medical Transcription (IIMT ). It was stated in the complaints, filed by the respondents, that before joining the Institute an assurance was given to them that each respondent would be provided placement in the field of medical transcription and each respondent would be provided job with a minimum salary of about Rs.7,000/- p. m. It was stated that the respondnets were also assured that a sum of Rs.3,000/- would be paid as stipend to each respondent after completion of four months of training, known as OJT. It was stated that each respondent had paid a fees (consideration) of Rs.25,000/- in lumpsum and Rs.27,000/- in instalments for taking admission in the said course on the above assurances of respondent No.2 and the appellant. It was stated that the respondents had undergone OJT training and after completion of four months, instead of sending the respondents to highly based medical transcription company, the appellant and respondent No.2 had sent the respondents to their own institute at South Extension which was practically of no use. It was stated that respondent No.2 and the appellant had failed to fulfil their obligations and assurances. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.2 and the appellant, in the complaints, filed by the respondents, before the District Forum it was prayed that the appellant and respondent No.2, be directed to provide job in medical transcription and also compensation to the respondent. In the alternative it was prayed that the appellant and respondent No.2 be directed to refund the fees taken by them together with interest @ 24% p. a. Each respondent had also claimed a compensation of Rs.50,000/- together with litigation expenses.

(3.) The claim of the respondents in the District Forum was resisted by the appellant and also by respondent No.2. In the reply/written version, filed on behalf of respondent No.2, it was stated that the advertisement in question was given by the appellant and that respondent No.2 was the franchise of the appellant and as per franchise contract the appellant had opened IIMT Centre at the premises of respondent No.2. The other allegations were also denied in the reply/written version filed on behalf of respondent No.2.