SHALINI VOHRA Vs. AKANKSHA SINGH BHADORIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") has been preferred by a senior executive of SpiceJet Ltd. (for short "the Company") (as impleaded in the Complaint) against order dated 07.12.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 752 of 2012. By the impugned order, the State Commission has upheld the order, dated 29.11.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alwar (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No. 547 of 2011, whereby, while allowing the Complaint, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to refund to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, deposited by her as training fee with interest @ 9% p.a., along with a further sum of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by her on account of non-refund of the said amount.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Company invited applications for recruitment of "Trainee Cabin Attendants" from across the Country. Candidates above the age of 18 years were eligible to apply for the said post. The Complainant also applied. On 12.12.2010, she was called for interview. On being selected on 28.12.2010, she was offered the job. As per the policy of the Company she deposited a non-refundable amount of Rs. 50,000/- for undergoing the training. However, on scrutiny of the papers submitted by her at the time of joining for training, it was discovered that she had wrongly mentioned her date of birth in her Resume as 02.11.1990, whereas her actual date of birth was 02.11.1993 and, therefore, as on the date of interview on 12.12.2010 she was below the age of 18 years. On gaining the said knowledge, the Company revoked the letter of offer sent to her and forfeited the said deposit of Rs. 50,000/-. On 08.03.2011, the Complainant sent a legal notice to the Petitioner seeking refund of the said amount. The prayer for refund of the said amount having been turned down by the Company, alleging deficiency in service, a Complaint under Section 12 of the Act was filed by the Complainant, praying for refund of the said amount alongwith compensation of Rs. 1 lac on account of loss of one precious year and a further sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for mental trauma, tension and depression.

(3.) The Complaint was contested by the Petitioner. Written reply on behalf of the Company was sent to the District Forum by post. In the said reply besides raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the Complaint on the ground that the Complainant was not a "consumer" as defined in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, it was also alleged that as per her own admission she had misrepresented in her Resume as well as at the time of interview that her age was 20 years 1 month and 11 days. However, her actual date of birth being 02.11.1993, she was only 17 years 1 month and 11 days of age as on the date of interview. It was also stated that the amount deposited by her was non-refundable as per the terms and conditions of the letter of offer sent to her.