Mr.Jose C.K.,

S/o. Chacko,

Aged 59 years,

Chartered Accountant,

R/A. 3, Gulshan Apartments,

Falnir Road, Kankanady,

Mangalore – 575 002. …….. COMPLAINANT



(Advocate: Smt.Suma R. Nayak)



VERSUS



1. SAP India Pvt. Ltd.,

No.5, Prestige Ridge,

Domlur Service Road,

Domlur, Bangalore – 560 071.



(Advocate: Sri.B.Nanda Kishore).



2. Genovate Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd.,

II Floor, Punja Building Annex,

M.G. Road, Lalbagh,

Mangalore – 575 003. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES


The Complainant submits that, Opposite Party No.1 is conducting the E Learning of System Application Programming in India and Opposite Party No.2 are the education partners/providers for Opposite Party No.1 at Mangalore. The Complainant is a Chartered Accountant joined for the E learning course by paying fee of Rs.1,34,832/- and also an additional examination fee of Rs.28,090/-. It is alleged that the Opposite Parties concealed the fact that the same course was available for Chartered Accountant at Rs.75,000/- and Rs.20,000/- if done through institute of Chartered Accountants of New Delhi since August 2007.

And further submits that, the Complainant paid the above amount by way of Demand Draft to Opposite Party No.2 on 26.5.2007 towards the full payment and the intimation of registration came only on 9.6.2007 and receipt dated 13.7.2007 was delivered on 26.7.2007 No prospectus of the E course (SAP FICO). Complainant alleges that inspite of paying so much of amount the Opposite Parties were supplied FICO course materials were of 2003 version and even after four years of usage of this study material several mistakes were found both in the slide show, speech and the book display. No specific index/contents, consecutive page numbers of the books, corresponding to the computer slide details are given thereby hindering students from proper organized learning and easy location of topics.

No practical guidance is given to solutions. In some cases menu paths are wrong. The exercises could not be done properly since all the time when data was entered the display read “data already saved” thereby preventing further action. Every day the System Administrator had entered the Citrix password to do the exercises. There were several program defects found in the above course. And further alleges that SAP specific terms are not clarified as and when required. The purpose and importance of linked reports and required authorizations are not described, though the lists given in the book. The Opposite Parties were not helping and co-operative in extending the facilities to the E learners.

Further alleges that the queries in doubt pad were answered late and unsatisfactorily owing to the in competency of the system managing experts. The experts appointed by Opposite Party No.1 lack respective qualification and experience. The sample clarification questions given in book No.3 not prepared according to the guidance specified in. The Opposite Parties could not give a full fledged test paper nor allowed to see an earlier test paper online.

The actual test has no comparison with the sample give. The weight ages given are wrong. During E- learning the LMS showed excess log in upto one hour on many days than actually used. This is because of the defective programming. Withdrawal of password for LMS soon after completion of 200 hours of E-learning caused great hardships revising the modules before the exam and case study in book No.5 was misguided, queries raised could not be sent for want of mail recipient ID which was never given and those entered on doubt pad were not answered until the end of the course.

And further submitted that, the Complainant paid the examination fee on 7.11.2007 and he was intimated by the Opposite Party No.1 that SAP FICO exam would take place on 7.12.2007 at Mumbai and timing was notified to the Complainant only three days before the exam. Though a center was also at Bangalore, the same was not communicated to the Complainant. The cancellation rules were intimated only on 22.11.2007.

No model examination was made available by Opposite Party No.1 rather unilateral cancellation rules were foisted upon the students. It is submitted that the examination was to be conducted on 7.12.2007 at 12 a.m., the protector entered the venue at 12.00 O’ clock and after 2 hours of pretended experimental loading of the exam module from her laptop which was told to be brought from Germany and she cancelled the examination all of a sudden and schedule it to 8.12.2007 at 9.00 a.m. at Mumbai. The Complainant inspite of all the inconvenience took the examination on next day i.e., 8.12.2007 by spending money again. On the said day the question paper displayed on the computer screen did not have any topic or question number or marks to be awarded. Examinations were conducted for 10 topics but marks were awarded 11 topics due to defective programming and marks are not to be considered as genuine as a system could not display on the computer screen.

The Complainant states that on completion of the examination the computer screen displayed the total marks of 3 topics are 235 and the average is 78%. Favourable weight age of 10% is to be given to the Complainant for the unscrupulous cancellation and re-scheduling of the certification exam by Opposite Party No.1. Nowhere is it mentioned or was the Complainant informed by the Opposite Parties that 70% is required to be declared pass. Though there had ten topics, only three displayed because of the defective programming. There is no system of revaluation too. There were several questions on ten topics but the marks communicated through E-mail were related to eleven topics. Opposite Party No.1 is entirely responsible for the defective format and programming of question paper and wrong scoring of marks so provided to the Complainant.

Complainant further submits that, the Opposite Parties have committed fraud and misrepresentation. Because of the Opposite Parties the Complainant suffered great financial loss, mental tension. It is further submitted that, the certification results overview was received by the Complainant on 22.2.2008 on personal request made on 19.2.2008 to the Opposite Party No.2 and further submits that the actual date of the test 8.12.2007 was shown as 7.12.2007 on which the exam was cancelled. The heading ‘overview’ the results have no authoritative sanction since there had no signature or address of the issuing authority.

The reference to sap.com/education is a new information so far not given. The details and marks are given are not shown in the computer display screen in the exam hall; those are fabricated. There has been gross deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 and hence the Complainant filed the above complaint before this Hon'ble Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Parties to remove the deficiency in service by declaring the Complainant pass in the certification and further prayed for Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- being the cost of litigation expenses.

2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel filed separate version.

The Opposite Party No.1 filed version contains 14 pages, wherein he has denied the deficiency and submitted that Complainant is not a consumer, the Hon'ble Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and submitted that the alleged cause of action arose in Mumbai and the Complainant had to file complaint before the Mumbai jurisdictional Forum.

It is submitted that, the course fee INR 1,20,000/- plus taxes and INR 25,000/- plus taxes charged as per the norms and certification fee. The reduced fee of INR 70,000/- and 20,000/- is applicable only to members of the ICAI and not all the Chartered Accountants in India. Unless the Opposite Party No.2 informed by the candidate regarding his Association with the above said institute, cannot treat the candidate as being a member of ICAI. It is submitted that, the day the candidate pays the fee, the candidate is registered in the learning management system. The E-learning commences only when SAP India receives the Demand Drafts from the concerned affiliated partner. The Opposite Party No.2 sent the cheque only on 8.6.2007 and the Opposite Party No.1 immediately released the access and consequently the course material was dispatched and the Complainant started his course on 9.6.2007.

It is submitted that SAP India Education Services does not publish any prospectus for any of the courses offered in India either E-learning or class room training. All brochures and catalogues are online as available on the websites. All information with the participants is via mail or counseling by the concerned partners of the Opposite Party No.1. It is submitted that the Complainant never made any attempt to bring about the insufficient information to the notice of the Opposite Party No.1.

It is submitted that, as far as the material version is concerned, under E-academies the FICO course is offered in 4.7 version which was a 2003, quarter 4 release. Since there has been no enhancement in the 4.7 version of the software since 2003 the training has also remained the same and there has been no change in the material. No screen shots of the error have been reported to Opposite Party No.1 till date. It is submitted that the candidates connect to training servers in Germany to complete their exercises and this is done via Citrix. The ID and password is not shared with the students in order to avoid misuse of the same. And further submitted that the entire concept of the E-learning is based on the fact that there will be no instructors to guide the participants through the course, as it is a self-learning model.

The candidates are not allowed to inspect the facilities as the venue of an examination at a location is decided only 10 working days prior to the date of examination. To avoid the chances of malpractices during the examination the Complainant was not permitted to visit the examination lab. And all the allegations alleged by the Complainant was specifically denied by the Opposite Party and submitted that there was no deficiency whatsoever on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.

Opposite Party No.2 also filed a version stating that Opposite Party No.2 is a education partner. The ICAI-SAP tie-up came through only in July 2007. The Complainant was a candidate registered in May and there being no tie-up between ICAI and SAP at that point of time the Complainant could not have availed the discounted price.

The Opposite Party No.2 is an authorized training partner, the role of the Opposite Party No.2 is limited to registering a candidate for a SAP course by collecting training fee in the name of Opposite Party No.1 and making the facility available for the duration of the training and there was/is no complaint of whatsoever nature till this date against the Opposite Party in the matter of making the facility. And rest of the deficiency alleged in the complaint are denied specifically by this Opposite Party and submitted that there is no deficiency service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

(i) Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?

(ii) Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service?



(iii) If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

(iv) What order?

4. In support of the complaint, Mr.Jose C.K. (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C35 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Sri.Samir Kashyap (RW1), Chief Financial Officer of the Opposite Party No.1 filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. One Smt.Kushalatha (RW2) – Senior Manager of the Opposite Party No.2 filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on her. Ex R1 to R10 were marked for the Opposite Party as listed in the annexure. Both the parties have produced notes of arguments along with citations.

We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and we have also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon'ble Forum and answer the points are as follows: Point No.(i): Negative.

Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
Reasons

5. Point No. (i) to (iv):

Now the point in dispute is that the Complainant alleged that he is a Chartered Accountant in profession. The Opposite Parties concealed the fact that the same course was available for Chartered Accountants at Rs.75,000/- and Rs.20,000/- if done through institute of Chartered Accountants of India New Delhi since August 2007. And further alleged that the Complainant paid the course fee of Rs.1,34,832/- by demand draft to Opposite Party No.2 on 26.5.2007 and the intimation of registration came only on 9.6.2007 and the receipt was dated 13.7.2007 and Opposite Parties not delivered any prospectus of the SAP FICO course was given at any stage except some insufficient details given in book No.3 under the headings:

i) SAP Consultant Certification at SAP AG TFIN12 19- 1 to 3.

ii) Certification questions exercises at SAP AG TFIN12 20-1 to 4.

iii) Certification questions solutions at SAP AG TFIN12 21-1.

And further alleged that he was astonished to find that the FICO course materials were of 2003 version and several mistakes are found both in the slide slow and the book display. No specific index/contents, consecutive page numbers of the books corresponding to the computer slide details are given thereby hindering students from proper organized learning and easy location of topics. No practical guidance is given to solutions. In some cases menu paths are wrong.


The exercises could not be done properly since all the time when data was entered the display read “data already saved” thereby preventing further action. Every day the system administrator had to enter the Citrix password to do the exercises. There were several program defects. And further alleged that SAP specific terms are not clarified as and when required. The purpose and importance of linked reports and required authorizations are not described though the lists given in the book. In the book it is written that some information/details will be given by the instructors but there had none such and thereby such information lacked. No practical guidance is given for solutions. Opposite Parties were not at all helping and co-operative in extending the facilities to the E-learners. And further alleged that they have not allowed the Complainant to enter the office to see the lab where the examinations were to be conducted and also did not allow the Complainant to open the labs to see them when the Complainant visited on 5.12.2007 to get acquainted the venue for the certification test.

That queries in doubt pad were answered very late and unsatisfactorily owing to the incompetency of the system managing experts. The experts appointed by the Opposite Party No.1 lack respective qualification and experience. And further alleged that sample certification questions given in book No.3 (ii) above were not prepared according to the guidance specified in namely (a) topics are different and insufficient (b) no marks specified and (c) only 37 exercises under 8 questions on 4 topics given instead of the required 80 exercises under 11 topics. And further alleged that Opposite Parties could not give even a single full fledged test papers nor allowed to see an earlier test paper online. The actual test has no comparison with the sample give. The weight ages given are wrong. During E-learning the LMS showed excess login upto one hour on many days than actually used.

This is because of the defective programming. Withdrawal of password for LMS soon after the completion of 200 hours of learning caused great hardships for revising the modules before the exam which again delayed more than one month because of defective scheduling. Case study in book No.5 was misguided, queries raised could not be sent for want of mail recipient ID which was never given. Those entered on doubt pad were not answered until the end of the course. And further alleged that he was intimated by Opposite Party No.1 that SAP FICO exam would take place on 7.12.2007 at Genovate, Mumbai and timing was notified only three days before the exam. Though a center was also at Bangalore the same was not communicated to the Complainant thereby leading to monetary loss. The cancellation rules were intimated to the Complainant only on 22.11.2007.

No model examination was made available by Opposite Party No.1 for the students of SAP FICO and rather unilateral cancellation rules were foisted upon the students. And further alleged that the examination was conducted on 7.12.2007 at 12.00 a.m., the proctor entered the venue only at 12 o’clock and after 2 hours of pretended experimental loading of the exam module from her laptop which was told to be brought from Germany she cancelled the examination all of a sudden and scheduled it to 8.12.2007 at 9 a.m., and the venue at Sakinaka, Mumbai. The Complainant was put to lot of inconvenience and suffered monetary loss. No specific instructions were given on the examination procedure beforehand nor were the candidates allowed to ask any questions as mentioned in the FAQ provided. Some stray oral instructions given at the examination hall were incomplete and defective.


And further alleged that the question paper displayed on the computer screen did not have any topic or question number or marks to be awarded and the examination was conducted for 10 topics but marks were awarded for 11 topics due to defective programming. The Complainant submits that the total marks of the 3 topics are 235 and the average is 78%. Favourable weight age of 10% is to be given to the Complainant for the unscrupulous cancellation and rescheduling of the certification exam by Opposite Party No.1 and it was not informed by the Opposite Parties that 70% marks is required to be declared pass. And further alleged that there had ten topics only three displayed because of the defective programming. There is no system of revaluation, the question paper was defective and it is alleged that the Opposite Party No.1 is entirely responsible for the defective format and programming of question paper and wrong scoring of marks so provided to the Complainant.

It is submitted that the certification results overview was received by the Complainant on 22.2.2008. There has been gross deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties and finally the Complainant sought a relief by this Hon'ble Forum seeking removal of deficiency in service by declaring the Complainant pass in the certification since the failure in the examination as displayed on the computer screen by Opposite Party No.1 is attributed entirely to the fraudulent programming and cancellation of examination, negligence, deficient service, defective question paper, sub-standard conducting of examination by Opposite Party No.1 and 2 and also prayed Rs.5,10,000/- as compensation and cost of the litigation expenses.

In the present case, in order to prove the case of the Complainant, the Complainant produced Ex C1 to C37. The Ex C25 is a participant hand book contains 589 pages and also the Ex C24 is another participant hand book contains 487 pages and Ex C26 is a another participant hand book contains 589 pages and Ex C27 i.e., again one more participant hand book contains 589 pages and Ex C28 another case study book contains 133 pages.

Apart from the above documents the Opposite Party also produced Ex R1 to R10. By looking into the documents produced by the Complainant as well as the Opposite Parties and also the allegations alleged by the Complainant is with regard to the E-learning course, it is a classroom training which is offered to students for 25 days with 8 hours of access every day which sums upto 200 hours. It is purely a E-learning course through the computer software and all brochures and catalogues are online and are available on the global website and in the E-learning mode the instructor is replaced by the voice over and help desk we can say that it is pure E-learning classroom training.

From bare reading of the allegations made by the Complainant in the above preceding paras itself shows that to adjudicate and to pass justifiable order it requires expert opinion as well as voluminous evidence, the above matter in issue cannot be decided in a summary fashion by the Forum. The complex factual positions involved in the above case are required to be established by the documents as well as the expert evidence. By looking into the voluminous documents as well as the oral evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that the factual position requires that the matter would be examined by an appropriate court of law and not by this Hon'ble Forum under summary fashion.

Apart from the above, the relief sought by the Complainant also ousts the jurisdiction of this Forum because the Complainant is prayed to direct to remove the deficiency in service by declaring the Complainant pass in the certification exam. The above relief is also beyond the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Even in this count also the complaint is not maintainable before this Hon'ble Forum and we direct the Complainant to approach the Civil Court for appropriate remedies. With the above observation the complaint is closed by keeping liberty to the Complainant to approach a Civil Court. No order as to costs.



6. In the result, we pass the following:


ORDER

The complaint is closed with the observation that the Complainant has to approach the Civil Court for appropriate remedy. No order as to costs.

Sudhakara Shetty,

S/o. Sri.Bhojaraja Shetty,

Ranganakeri,

P.O. Barkur – 576 210,

Udupi Taluk & District. …….. COMPLAINANT






VERSUS



1. M/s.SAP India Pvt. Ltd.,

No.5, Domlur Service Road,

Domlur, Bangalore – 560 071.



2. M/s. Genovate Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

A Wing, 2nd Floor, Phoenix House,

462 Senapati Bapat Marg,

Lower Parel (W),

Mumbai – 400 013,

Rep. by its Managing Director.



3. M/s.Genovate Solutions Mangalore Pvt. Ltd.,

2nd Floor, Punja Building Annex,

M.G. Road, Lalbagh,

Mangalore – 575 003. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES






1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.

The case of the Complainant is that, the Complainant being a science graduate came across the advertisement through E-mail made by Opposite Party No.3 and subsequent meetings with the Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.3 who is the agent of the Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant lured with the promise given by the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 had remitted a sum of Rs.1,34,832/- to the Opposite Party No.1 as per invoice dated 13.7.2007.


It is alleged that the Opposite Parties named above made their misleading advertisement/ assurances/statements made through various e-mails received by the Complainant periodically and submitted that the Complainant has successfully undergone the certification programme held by the Opposite Party No.1 and the certificate was issued by the Opposite Party No.1, Complainant has realized that the training programme undergone by him from the Opposite Parties by paying exorbitant fees has become virtually useless for the Complainant in securing attractive jobs as assured by the Opposite Party No.2 and 3. And it is submitted that the contents of the advertisement made by the Opposite Parties are far from truth, by believing the contents of the advertisement the Complainant left his job where he was drawing a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month and joined the training programme hoping to get excellent jobs with attractive salary and perks thereby the Complainant had incurred a salary loss of about Rs.2,20,000/-.

It is further contended that on 7.5.2008 the Opposite Party No.2 sent the E-mail to send the CV to them and they have informed to look into the matter but they have failed to secure the excellent jobs as assured by them and contended that the Opposite Parties made false assurance of securing a decent job with attractive salary in reputed companies which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Therefore, the above complaint is filed by the Complainant before this Hon'ble Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Parties to refund a sum of Rs.1,62,922/- being the amount of course (tuition) fees and examination fees and also claimed reimbursement of loss of salary Rs.2,20,000/- and further Rs.2,15,000/- claimed as compensation.



2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel filed separate version.

Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the complaint is not maintainable either on merits, facts or in law. The first plea taken by the Opposite Party No.1 is that the Complainant is not a consumer under the purview of the Act and the complaint is not maintainable.

It is further submitted that the Complainant had voluntarily taken admission to the course and completed the SAP course and certification to that effect was issued to the Complainant.

This Opposite Party submitted that they have not issued any assurance or promise to the Complainant in providing placement services. This Opposite Party is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, SAP India Private Limited is into marketing, licences, sells and/or distributes software and provides support to software end users and do not carry any business of providing placement services. It is submitted that the Complainant has made a vague allegations not supported by any documents and the E-mails alleged by the Complainant are not issued by this Opposite Party or by its authorized representatives and the persons mentioned by the Complainant in paragraph 3 of the complaint are not the agents of this Opposite Party.


And it is further submitted that the authorized representatives of this Opposite Party had not given any misleading advertisement/assurance/statements through E-mail to the Complainant. It is submitted that the Opposite Party had received the fee for conducting course and not for providing the placement. The Opposite Party had provided the service for the consideration received the placement service which was not at all agreed between this Opposite Party and the Complainant and rest of the allegations alleged in the complaint are specifically denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

As far as Opposite Party No.2 and 3 is concerned, they have submitted that neither this Opposite Party nor any person on behalf of the Opposite Party has made any promises with regard to the training program to the Complainant. It is the Complainant who was satisfied with the benefits of the training program had joined the institution of Opposite Party on 9.7.2007 by paying prescribed fee to the Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant was successful in the training program and the Complainant has passed in the examination and was issued certificate.

It is submitted that the total duration of the training pragramme was 200 hours and the candidate has to finish the said 200 hours within 5 months at his free time and convenient time including Saturday and Sunday. There was no need or necessity to leave the job for the Complainant even if he had good job.

It is submitted that the center Manager of Opposite Party No.3 Smt.Kushalatha sent the E-mail but there was nothing in the said E-mail to make the Complainant to believe that the Opposite Parties will secure good job with attractive salary to the Complainant. It is submitted that these Opposite Parties have ever promised the Complainant that they will get the excellent job to him. There was no contract or consideration for service in so far as getting the job is concerned. The Opposite Parties have only assured the good education and training which they have provided and the Complainant was successfully completed. It is contended that there is no deficiency whatsoever as alleged by the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.



3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

(i) Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?



(ii) If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?





(iii) What order?



4. In support of the complaint, Sri.Sudhakara Shetty (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint but not answered the interrogatories served by the Opposite Party No.2 and 3. Ex C1 to C18 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Smt.Madhu Kohli (RW1), Legal counsel of SAP India Private Limited i.e., Opposite Party No.1 filed counter affidavit but not answered the interrogatories served on her. One Smt.Kushalatha (RW2) – working as Senior Manager of the Opposite Party No.3 and representing Opposite Party No.2 also filed counter affidavit but not answered the interrogatories served on her. The Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 produced notes of arguments along with citations.

We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and we have also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon'ble Forum and answer the points are as follows: Point No.(i): Negative.

Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
Reasons



5. Point No. (i) to (iii):

In the present case, the Complainant contended that he had availed the service of the Opposite Parties by their misleading advertisement sent through various E-mails from time to time and submitted that the Complainant lured with the promises given by the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 who are the agents of Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant had remitted a sum of Rs.1,34,832/- to Opposite Party No.1 as per invoice dated 13.7.2007.


The Complainant had successfully undergone the certification program and certificate issued by Opposite Party No.1. It is contended that the Opposite Parties assured and promised that they will provide the placement assistance for the certified candidates to get placed. By believing the assurance and statement for securing an excellent job to the Complainant he has lost his job and till this date the Opposite Parties not provided any job as assured by them hence he came up with this complaint.

On the contrary, the Opposite Parties taken a specific contention that the Opposite Party No.1 is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, SAP India Private Limited is into marketing, licences, sells and distributes software and provides support to software end users and do not carry any business of providing placement services. There is no document or service or contract between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties. The course fee has given only towards the SAP certification program and not for any other services. The Opposite Party No.1 received the course fee from the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 for providing login ID and password to access the SAP course materials.


The Complainant had completed the SAP certification program and the certificate was issued by the Opposite Party for which service the Complainant has paid the amount and further denied that Opposite Party No.1 has not provided any misleading advertisement/ assurance/statements directly or indirectly. It is stated that in all the E-mails correspondences provided by the Complainant it has been submitted by the Opposite Party No.2 that they will provide the placement assistance for the certified candidates to get placed. There is no promise or assurance made by the Opposite Parties to provide a placement to the Complainant. Hence it is contended that there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice.

However, there is no dispute about the fact that the Complainant paid the course fee as per invoice dated 13.7.2007 i.e., Ex C1. It is also not in dispute that the Opposite Party No.1 offered a SAP certificate course which is a E-Learning FI/CO. The duration of the course is 200 hours, once candidate pays course fees it takes 10 working days to get user ID and password. There is no batch start date and candidates can start the course anytime. The course can be completed in 25 days to 5 months. The above said course can be obtained by any of the professionals or any candidates because the academy has flexible timings. It is also not in dispute by the parties that the Complainant paid the course fee and had successfully completed the SAP certification program/course and the Opposite Party No.1 issued a SAP certificate.

Now the point for consideration is that, whether the Complainant proves that there is any contract between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties that the Opposite Parties shall provide a placement or an excellent job to the Complainant? The entire burden lies upon the Complainant in this case.

In the present case, on careful scrutiny of all the E-mails produced by the Complainant revealed that there is no assurance/promise committed by the Opposite Parties but they have committed to assisting the certified candidates get placed. But there is no document to show that the Complainant paid a service charge to the Opposite Parties to get the job. In the present case, the invoice and other documents produced by the Complainant showed that the Complainant paid only the course fee for which he has availed the service and he had successfully completed the SAP certification course and the Opposite Party No.1 issued the SAP certificate. When such being the case, we cannot accept the grievances of the Complainant that the Opposite Parties have mislead the Complainant by way of advertisements/assurances directly or indirectly.


All the E-mails correspondences produced by the Complainant showed that there is no promise or contract between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties to provide the placement assistance or provide any job. Even by assuming that the E-mail copies provided by the Complainant are proved and genuine, by reading all the E-mails provided by the Complainant there is no promise or assurance made by the Opposite Party No.2 or any other Opposite Parties that they shall provide a placement to the Complainant, it is only the assistance provided by the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 to get the certified candidates placed without any service or contract or consideration is proved.


There is no document provided by the Complainant to show that he was forced to take the SAP–SD module. It is proved that the training was imparted through E-learning and the Complainant was provided a login ID and password, so that he could login any time in a day and have access to the training syllabus. In case of any queries he could raise doubts to the concerned subject. It is clear that any of the students enrolling for the training could certainly undertake the training as and when time permits and therefore the question of the Complainant has to loose his salary for 11 months to obtain the training is not acceptable. Because the decision taken by the Complainant is the sole decision and the Opposite Parties are not responsible for the same.

In the given case, on overall considering the documents as well as the evidence on record it is proved that there is no assurance or statement for placement of the Complainant and there is no service or contract for placement between the Opposite Parties and the Complainant. There is no consideration paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties to get a placement service. In the absence of any consideration or any contract it cannot be accepted that the Opposite Parties had assured the Complainant to get the placement. There is no contractual relationship between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties as far as placement of job is concerned.

In view of the above discussion, the Complainant has miserably failed to prove the grievances placed before the FORA. Hence the complaint has no basis deserves to be dismissed. No order as to costs.



6. In the result, we pass the following:


ORDER

The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.