PUNEET SARAN Vs. VINOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) Brief facts in these cases filed by Vinod and Ajay Chandra Shekhar are that the two complainants took admission in the Indian Institute of Medical Transcription for Medical Transcription course and both deposited Rs. 25,000 as fee. The admission was taken on the basis of the advertisement that IIMT Institute had been promoted by Global Information Technologies Institute of U.S.A. It is evident that IIMT, Indore was being run through a Franchisee of IIMT, Delhi Mr. Ravi Mehta and Puneet Saran was its Executive Director, as is evident from the document provided by Puneet Saran. After some time, the complainant Vinod Kumar learnt through T.V. that the IIMT had failed to render services in accordance with the promises made by them. This fact was brought to the notice of other students by the complainant. The complainant was expelled from the Institute. By then, four months had already lapsed. The basic training had already completed but the Institute had not started the production centre. The contract with the IIMT Delhi was terminated. When the complainant Vinod Kumar demanded the training certificate for the first time, opposite party/petitioner advised him to appear in examination which, was not scheduled as per their representation made initially. Competent and qualified teachers did not give lectures nor placement was arranged as he was assured while taking admission. Vinod Kumar filed a complaint for refund of Rs. 25,000 and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 with interest for loss of an year.

(3.) The petitioner contested the matter inter alia on the ground that information given on T.V. did not relate to the opposite party Institute. The complainant failed in final examination. Consequently, certificate could not be issued. In order to provide a chance for improvement, the complainant was put on job training and stipend was also given. But he left the training. There was no deficiency in rendering service.