PARTH SARTHI AYANGAR DIRECTOR Vs. ABHINAV SHRIVASTAVA S/O SHRI NANDKISHORE SHRIVASTAVA, R/O 72 VARDHMAN NAGAR, G. RAJNANDGAONC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions arise out of single order of State Commission; hence, decided by common order. R.P. No. 2769/2013 has been filed by OP and R.P. No. 3469/2013 has been filed by complainant against order dated 8.4.2013 passed by the C.G. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur (in short,‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. FA/12/557 - Parth Sarthi Ayangar Vs. Abhinav Shrivastava by which, appeal was partly allowed and order of District Forum was modified.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant approached O.P., the director of the institution Stylus Academy in Oct., 2010 for the purpose of undergoing a six months Training course for only Basis Module when he was advised to go for a six months Certification Course (Basis Module) of 'SAP University, Germany' for which he agreed and deposited requisite amount of Rs.1,65,000.00 with O.P. The complainant further averred that O.P. had assured him that he was having a tie up with software companies, so would arrange the desired course at other centers like Chennai, Bangalore etc. and subsequently he was asked to join at Bangalore where requisite fee would be deposited and thereafter study material and User name ID would be provided. Complainant averred that he contacted Unisoft Info Tech Company at Bangalore on the advice of O.P. where he noticed that neither any fee was deposited for the course nor his name was registered there. Complainant stayed there for 10 days when he was informed that two years’ experience was essential for the course, but said fact was not informed by the O.P. who had collected the fee amount from him by misguiding. Complainant further averred that he had not been provided Study material and User Name ID till date thereby he could not complete the six months course resulting into loss to him and causing harassment & mental agony. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that the complainant was advised about the six months Basic Module Course for which the qualification informed was graduate like B. Com, B.C.A. and M.B.A. or two years’ experience, whereas complainant had informed to O.P. that he was a graduate and M.B.A. but had no experience. O.P. further averred that the complainant was advised to contact Managing Director of Unisoft Info Tech Company at Bangalore as per his choice of place for Level Training - 2 course and since it was noticed that he had no document related to M.B.A. so he was called for Level - 1 training but he did not join there. Managing Director of Unisoft Info Tech Company had twice intimated O.P. in this regard and accordingly the complainant was also intimated about the same. Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to refund Rs.1,65,000.00 with 6% p.a. interest and to pay compensation of Rs.1,000.00 and cost of litigation Rs.1,000.00. Appeal filed by OP was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, both parties have filed revision petitions along with application for condonation of delay.

(3.) As there is delay in filing both revision petitions, we deem it appropriate to condone delay for the reasons mentioned in the applications and delay in filing both revision petitions stand condoned.