M MARICHAND Vs. SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in C. O. P. No.119/2000 on the file of the District Forum, Chengalpattu is the appellant herein.

(2.) His case was as follows : The complainant, a qualified software engineer with a first class in B. E. Computer Science and additional qualification of first class M. B. A. Degree, responded to a publicity given by the opposite party for a 'sap-in-house training programme'. He was selected for 4 months' in-house training and an order was issued by the opposite party on 23.3.1998 to the following effect : "the training period will be 4 months. A deposit of Rs.1,75,000 to be made in two instalments and a further deposit to be made for Rs.75,000 at the time of placement in U. K. , U. S. A. , or Singapore offices of the opposite party at the end of the training programme. The entire deposit would be refunded at the end of one year working with the opposite party on SAP Projects. At the end of the programme, contingent upon the performance of the trainees the opposite party would provide placement in their offices in U. K. , U. S. A. , or Singapore. During the training period after the first month for the second, the third and the fourth months, a monthly stipend of Rs.5,000 would be given for three months. After the four months training till placement is made at the overseas offices, a salary of Rs.10,000 per month would be paid. " The complainant accepted the above terms and made payment of Rs.1,75,000 by availing loan from a commercial bank and private sources through his father. He joined the programme on 24.3.1998. He successfully completed in-house training on 23.7.1998 along with 17 other candidates. As per the terms of the agreement a sum of Rs.5,000 was paid as stipend for the second, the third and the fourth months training. From the 1st of August, the complainant was asked to attend work in the office of the opposite party. He worked till the end of December, 1998. The opposite party did not however pay the salary stipulated in the agreement between the parties. There was also no indication of any placement overseas to the complainant. Many of the trainees left the opposite party seeking employment elsewhere. The complainant approached the opposite party in the last week of December with a request to confirm whether he would be placed in the overseas offices cf the opposite party or he was to find out any employment on his own. The opposite party advised the complainant to take up assignment with any other company since the opposite party was not in a position to offer placement after completion of the training. The opposite party also agreed to refund the deposit amount of Rs. l,75,000 and the arrears of salary of Rs.50,000. The complainant left authorisation letter dated 30.12.1998 to his father to get the refund of the the amounts and left for Mumbai to attend an interview. His father wrote letters dated 7.1.1999 and 22.1.1999 to the opposite party for refund of amount. There was no response or reply. His father approached the opposite party in person on 30.1.1999 and 10.2.1999 and also on telephone requested for refund of the amount as promised. The opposite party without refunding the amount issued a letter dated 28.12.1999 in a cover having the postal seal dated 10.2.1999 through ordinary post with a mala fide intention to deliberately refuse the refund of deposit as promised since they were not able to provide overseas placement to the complainant. The complainant sent a letter dated 23.2.1999 putting forth the correct factual position and requested for refund of the amount. His father also sent a letter dated 16.3.1999 and also as reply to the letter of the opposite party dated 10.3.1999. The opposite party sent a reply dated 23.3.1999 for the first time claiming that the complainant had not accepted the appointment given to him and, therefore, the opposite party was not liable to refund the amount. A lawyer notice was issued on 23.1.2000. A reply was sent on 7.3.2000. In the reply the opposite party pleaded a new case that the complainant had not completed the training successfully in 4 months and hence from September he was permitted second training on humanitarian ground and on completion of the second training, he was issued appointment order dated 28.12.1999 and since he had not joined and worked for 2000 hours, he was not entitled to refund of the amount. The stand of the opposite party was wrong inasmuch as the complainant had permitted to sign in the muster rolls for the months of August, September and October, 1998 along with other employees and he had also secured 78 marks for his training. Further the muster roll members mentioned in the muster rolls were paid salaries. Another muster roll member Mr. Jose Francis who had also secured the same mark as the complainant had been employed and was also paid salary. Similarly the other members, who had not secured mark, had also signed as employees in the muster rolls. They were also paid salaries. The candidate T. Sivakumar, who had worked only for two months was refunded with Rs.75,000 by the opposite party. In these circumstances, the complaint came to be filed for a direction to the opposite party to refund the deposit of Rs.1,75,000 with a compensation of Rs.2 lakh and Rs.50,000 towards salary for 5 months totalling in all Rs.4,25,000.

(3.) The defence set up was as follows : The complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of the Act. He was neither in the employment of the opposite party for a period of one year not worked for 2000 hours. The complaint was liable to be dismissed. The complaint was also barred by limitation. The complainant was not successful in completing the training programme within the stipulated period of 4 months. The complainant made numerous requests to the opposite party to provide training for the second time. On humanitarian grounds the opposite party permitted the complainant to have further training free of cost. During the months from August to December, 1999, neither the complainant nor his father asked for his stipend amount. After the complainant completed the training programme, he was appointed as "sap Consultant' vide letter dated 28.12.1998. The clause 'contingent upon HIB visa and their clients' acceptance' was an essential clause". The opposite party had spent a sum of Rs.1,87,915.40 on the complainant's training for the first round and Rs.1,62,640.40 for the second round of training. On receipt of the letter of appointment the complainant instead of joining services with the opposite party authorised his father to collect deposit which he had made, which would show the ulterior purpose of the complainant. As the complainant had not worked for one year after the completion of the training, the opposite party did not respond to the complainant father's letter dated 7.1.1999 and 22.1.1999. On 10.2.1999 the complainant's father with an Assistant Inspector of Factories and other persons approached the opposite party and he was informed that the letter of appointment was addressed to the complainant on 28.12.1998, but he refused to receive the appointment letter but threatened to staff of the opposite party with dire consequences. In order to secure their safety, the opposite party was forced to lodge a complaint with the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tambaram through the General Manager against the father of the complainant. The complainant was not entitled to refund of the deposit. The complaint was liable to be dismissed.