Appeal No.1234/05

Informatic Education Centre V. Virendra Singh


Before:


Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member


Shri Umesh Nagpal,counsel for the appellant

Shri Sandeep Saini,counsel for the respondent




Date of Judgement: 29.6.09



BY THE STATE COMMISSION


This appeal has been filed by the appellant which was op no.1 before the District Forum-I,Jaipur against the order dated 31.5.05 passed by the District Forum-I,Jaipur in complaint case no.475/04,by which the complaint of the complainant respondent was allowed against the apppellant in the manner that the appellant was directed to return the amount of Rs.16,000/- charged by the appellant as fee, to the complainant respondent and further to pay Rs.1000/- as amount of cost of litigation and if the above amount was not paid within 3 months the complainant respondent would be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a.


It arises in the following circumstances:


That the complainant respondent had filed a complaint against the appellant before the District Forum-I,Jaipur on 3.9.04 interalia stating that the appellant Education Centre gives prescribed training of Computer and the complainant respondent had applied in the month of August,01 for getting the Computer hardware diploma course of one year and he had paid a sum of Rs.20,000/-. It was further stated in the complaint that the

2


appellant had assured the complainant respondent that after getting that diploma course,the complainant would get a job and thus a gurantee was given by the appellant for the job and it was further stated that in case the job was not provided the fee charged would be returned. Thus the complainant respondent had two grievances in his complaint –


1.

that though the course was for job oriented but no job was provided by the appellant
2.

that even after completing the course of one year no certificate of diploma course was issued by the appellant and for the deficiency the complaint was filed.


The appellant had filed a reply in the shape of affidavit of Shri Tarun Tak,Proprietor of the appellant and the case of the appellant was as follows:


1.

that the complaint was time barred
2.

that no guarantee was given for providing the job and it was also wrong to say that in case job was not provided,fees will be returned
3.

that the complainant respondent had wrongly stated that a sum of Rs.20,000/- were paid,but on the contrary only Rs.16,000/- were paid and receipt of that has been filed and thus it was prayed that because of above reasons the complaint be dismissed.


The District Forum after hearing both the parties,through the impugned order dated 31.5.05 had allowed the complaint as stated above interalia holding that the appellant had given the job guarantee after passing the course and since no job was provided by the appellant,therefore,a sum of Rs.16,000/- for which receipt is there,were ordered to be returned by the appellant to the complainant respondent.


Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the appellant.


So far as the preliminary objection that the appeal is time barred by 20 days by the complainant respondent is concerned,looking to the averments

3


made in the application filed u/s 5,delay is condoned and preliminary objection stands rejected.


The next question to be decided is whether by providing the diploma course by the appellant to the complainant respondent,there was any guarantee for the job or not;


No doubt,a card issued by the appellant had been produced where it was mentioned a guaranteed job oriented course,but in our considered opinion,it does not reflect that after passing the course,the job would be provided by the appellant. On the contrary,it means that a person who is qualified could get a job,therefore,the case of the complainant respondent that a guarantee was given by the appellant for providing the job could not be accepted and similarly,the findings recorded by the District Forum on that count could not stand.


The learned counsel for the complainant respondent has stated that apart from that it was specifically mentioned in the complaint that even after passing the one year diploma course no Hardwere Diploma Certificate had been issued by the appellant even today and thus there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and thus from that point of view also,some compensation be awarded.


In this case the learned counsel for the appellant has frankly admitted that in case any diploma certificate has not been issued by the appellant that could be issued now or a duplicate copy could be issued also if issued earlier.


On file,there is no certificate issued by the appellant showing that the complainant respondent had passed the diploma course though it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant respondent had passed that course.


When the complainant respondent had passed that course it was the

4

duty of the appellant to have issued a certificate and since that was not issued by the appellant, therefore,it amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. Thus the complainant respondent is entitled to some amount of compensation for not issuing the certificate, but he is not entitled to get back the fees of Rs.16,000/- deposited by him because of the simple reason that the course was given by the appellant to the complainant respondent.


The next question is what compensation could be awarded to the complainant respondent for not supplying the diploma certificate and in our considered opinion,looking to the facts and circumstances of the case,if a sum of Rs.15,000/- in lumpsum are ordered to be paid by the appellant to the complainant respondent that would meet the ends of justice.


It is made clear that this amount is being awarded to the complainant respondent as amount of compensation and not as the amount as ordered by the District Forum.


For reasons as stated above,this appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed in the manner that the appellant would pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- in lumpsum as amount of compensation for not supplying the certificate of diploma course and it may be stated here that while prefering this appeal,the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.8500/- and this amount could be withdrawn by the complainant respondent alongwith interest that had accrued on that amount and the remaining amount of Rs.6500/- would be paid by the appellant to the complainant respondent within two months from today failing which the complainant respondent would be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a on Rs.6500/- from today. It is further ordered that the appellant would provide the original certificate of diploma course or if issued earlier a certified copy /duplicate copy within one month from today to the complainant respondent. The impugned order dated 31.5.05 passed by the District Forum-I,Jaipur be treated as modified.



Member President