Haryana

StateCommission

A/1533/2017

SANJAY SOOD AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

ALLIED INSTITUTE OF HOTEL MANAGMENT AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

NP SHARMA

01 Feb 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.1533 of 2017

Date of the Institution: 14.12.2017

Date of Decision:01.02.2018

 

1.  Shri Sanjay Sood, about 50 years, S/o Shri Late Shri Raghubir Chand Sood, aged resident of H.No.472, Sector11, Panchkula, Haryana.
2. Shri Aniket Sood, aged about 22 years S/o Shri Sanjay Sood, R/o H.No.472, Sector 11, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                                                             .….Appellants

 

Versus

 

1.      Allied Institute of Hotel Management & Culinary Arts, through its Principal, Shri Pankaj Jasrotia/Director Mr. Sunali, SCO No.43, 2^nd Floor, Sector 11 Panchkula, Haryana.

2.     Opsis Education, through its Director, Ms. Tanvi Shah, 103, Garden View Complex, Kala Khoda Circle, Sayajiganj, Vadodara-390005, Gujrat.

                                                                             .….Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.N.P.Sharma, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

     It was alleged by the complainants that after completing 10+2 class in the year 2013, complainant No.2 took admission in one year diploma course run by opposite party (O.P.) No.1 and paid Rs.69,000/-.  After completion of course O.P.No.1 awarded three certificates and was sent for 6 months training at Marriott Resort and SPA at Goa. After training he was offered an international placement by O.P.No.2 at Vadodara, Gujarat.  As per terms and conditions mentioned in e-mail dated 03.04.2015 it was assured by O.Ps. that placement would be arranged by them at Malaysia, as mentioned in the complaint.  Initial salary was to be Rs.23,992/- besides tips.  For food and accommodation Rs.1,60,000/- were to be paid. When he contacted  O.P.No.1 for Overseas Program it was told that in total Rs.2,60,500/- were to be paid.  After deposit of that amount he was sent to Malaysia but was kept without any work for 15 days.  Lateron he was sent to Kuala Lumpur and asked to work with “Fat Boy” and no salary was paid to him. He was asked to work as a “Cleaner”.  He was also not provided food or proper salary.  As the O.Ps. did not keep their promise, complaint was lodged with high commission of India situated at Kuala Lumpur and thereafter pass-port was handed over to him.  In this way O.Ps. did not keep their promise and there was deficiency in the service, so they be directed to pay compensation as prayed for.  Previously also he filed complaint No.93 of 2016, but, the same was withdrawn on 28.04.2016.

2.      In reply, it was alleged by O.P.No.1 that the  complaint was not maintainable before the Consumer Fora.  They had already lodged complaint with the police on that very cause of action.  Proper training was provided to him and Overseas Placement was also arranged.  Complainant No.2 moved to Malaysia as per agreement executed  in between them. No extra offer was made as alleged by them.

3.      O.P.No.2 was proceeded against ex parte before Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (in short “District Forum”).

4.      After hearing both the parties, learned District forum come to the conclusion that the dispute was involving complicated question of law and facts.  The clauses of contract, executed in between them were also to be interpreted, so they should go to Civil Court.

5.       Feeling aggrieved therefrom complainants have preferred this appeal to set aside impugned order and allowed the complaint.

6.      Arguments heard. File perused.

7.      Learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that every consumer complaint is related to some dispute and evidence is also to be recorded, but, it does not mean that  the matter be relegated to civil court as opined by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punj Lloyd Limited Vs. Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd. 1 (2009) CPJ 10 (SC). 

8.      It is admitted that there will be dispute in every consumer complaint because if it is not so then there is no necessity to file a complaint, but, it has been opined by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Munni Mahesh Patel 2006(7) SCC 655,  Dr. J.J.Merchant and others
Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi, 2002 (III) RCR (Civil) 700 and CCI Chambers Coop. HSG. Society Ltd. Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233 and Hon’ble National Commission in Lala Samachar Newspaper Vs. General Manager Telecom Department, Ludiana 1997 (1) CPJ 95  that if complex question is involved in consumer complaint then the matter should be examined by the civil court.    In the present case also complex question of interpretation of agreement executed in between the parties is to be adjudicated upon which could only be done by the civil court. Complainants have already lodged a criminal complaint against the O.Ps. so keeping in view all the facts and circumstances learned District Forum rightly came to conclusion that the matter be agitated before the civil court.  Impugned order is well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Resultantly appeal is hereby dismissed in limine.

 

February 01st, 2018

Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

    

S.K.