SEKHAR BHATTACHARYA Vs. GOUTAM ROY CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the State Commission of West Bengal in case No. 786 of 1991 dismissing the complaint of the appellant. The appellant had joined as a student in the Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications Course in the Institute of Computer Engineers (India), Calcutta in 1988 after depositing Rs. 2400/- as enrolment fee. On the completion of the course he appeared at examination conducted by the Institute and eventually received a certificate of merit, Grade 'A' in September, 1989.

(2.) THE appellant has alleged that there was no trained instructor in the institute and that the Receptionist often used to conduct the classes, that he had brought this fact to the notice of the Director who persuaded him to "cooperate with institute" and assured him a job after completion of the course. Further that the examination which he underwent at the end of the session consisted only of six subjects as against 10. Again he approached the Director of the Institute for a job who assured him that he would make efforts but failed. He also claims to have worked as an Instructor in the Institute from 1st August, 1990 to July, 1991 without any remuneration. So the appellant on the 11th February, 1992 moved the State Commission of West Bengal claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the Opposite Party on the ground of deficiency in service.

(3.) AFTER hearing the Counsel and having gone through the records of the case we find that though the appellant got his diploma in the year 1989 it is only in 1992 that he made a complaint regarding deficiency in training, in the examination conducted to test his proficiency to work on computer. We do not accept that there was any commitment on the part of the Institute to provide him with a job after completion of his diploma course. At best it could only provide assistance in securing a job. In any case this could not be a part of the service which the Institute was bound to provide as a quid pro quo for the fees he had paid for undergoing the diploma course. We are satisfied that this is not a bona fide consumer complaint made under the Consumer Protection Act nor is there any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party-Respondent. The com-j plaint is misconceived and the appeal, is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.