RAJEEV SAHAY Vs. SANJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Opposite Party No.1 against the Respondent No.1/ Complainant and Respondent No.2/ Opposite Party No.2 challenging the impugned order dtd. 27/9/2016 passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi in First Appeal bearing No. 130 of 2016. Vide such order, the State Commission had dismissed the Appeal in upholding the order dtd. 12/5/2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhanbad in Consumer Case No. 22/2011.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant was in search of a reputed institution imparting Computer Application Courses and being attracted by the advertisement of the Opposite Parties came to its Dhanbad centre run under the Franchise (Opposite Party No.1), of the Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant was briefed about the terms and conditions and the courses by the Opposite Party No.1. It was claimed by the Complainant that he was informed that the students seeking admission in A.C.C.P. courses of computer had to pay a total sum of Rs.1,20,000.00 for two years theory and practical classes, and one year internship with reputed multinational company and in course of internship, the students were to be paid a handsome stipend and thereafter the Trainee was to be placed in a reputed company. It was further submitted that the Complainant being attracted by the future prospects took admission in A.C.C.P. course by paying an admission fees of Rs.4,314.00 on 17/12/2007. The Complainant was further directed to deposit the balance sum after 15 days and on his request, the Opposite Party No.1 agreed and allowed payment of balance fees in instalments and consequently the Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.20,000.00 . However, no receipt was given to the Complainant and he was told that the receipt would be given later. The Complainant was given a receipt of Rs.10,128.00 only in six months upto 19/6/2008. It was further the case of the Complainant that he was pressed by the Opposite Party to deposit the rest amount and on inquiring of about the receipt and irregular classes, he was informed that the receipt could not be given due to some technical difficulty and irregular classes would be regularised soon. It was further submitted that the Complainant was also informed that on payment of balance amount, the Complainant would be imparted in upgraded course and thereafter on completion of the course, he would be sent to a reputed company for internship. The Complainant further averred that on believing the Opposite Party, he paid Rs.95,686.00 totalling the sum paid to Rs.1,20,000.00. However, the Opposite Party has only given a receipt of only Rs.58,156.00. Further, it was averred that the Complainant was enrolled in the upgraded course. However, the Opposite Party did not improve the imparting process, irregular theoretical and practical classes. It was further alleged that after completion of course on 17/12/2009, the Complainant was entitled for internship. However, the Opposite Party kept mum in this regard. The Opposite Party failed to send the Complainant for internship and also failed to give receipts for the payments made by him. Hence, the Complainant alleged that he has been cheated by the Opposite Party further, causing irreparable loss, monetary toll, mental agony and harassment. Being aggrieved by such acts, the Complainant also sent a Legal Notice to the Opposite Party which was replied by the Opposite Party stating wrong facts. Therefore, being aggrieved by the acts of the Opposite Party, the complaint was filed before the District Forum seeking refund of Rs.1,20,000.00 and Rs.1,00,000.00 for mental agony and harassment.

(3.) The Opposite Party No.1 appeared before the District Forum and resisted the Complaint and denied all the allegations thereby denying deficiency in service on its part. It was contended by the Opposite Party No.1 that the Complainant had enrolled in Aptech Computer Education on 17/12/2007 for getting assistance in ACCP Internship programme for which he undertook to abide by the direction as laid down by Aptech Computer Education and the Complainant entered into an agreement by executing a declaration in favour of Aptech Computer Education. It was also contended that the Complainant did not abide by his declaration and undertakings and he did not attend the test, hence, under clause 'j' of the declaration, the Aptech Computer Education found him not to be eligible for the allotment of an Internship Site. It was further submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 had several times informed the Complainant verbally, telephonically and through Email to attend the interviews which were conducted by reputed companies. However, the Complainant failed to participate and consequently, the internship site was not allotted to the Complainant. It was the case of the Opposite Party No.1 that the Complainant did not get internship due to his own fault, and has now filed a frivolous complaint with the sole purpose of harassing the Opposite Party No.1. It was further submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 also replied to the Legal Notice sent by Complainant's father clarifying all the perplexity and it was stated that receipt was issued for whatever amount had been received and no amount beyond the receipt was received.