Per Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President
Ld.counsel for the appellant is absent. In this matter notice before admission was issued r/o.23/08/2011. Accordingly, case appeared today. Appellant and appellant’s counsel both are absent. Respondent though served is absent. Under these circumstances, we are constrained to proceed with this matter.
This appeal is directed against the order passed in consumer complaint no.10/326 decided by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur. Complaint was allowed and the appellants/original opponents was directed to pay amount of `40,000/- to the original complainant. Appellants are further directed to pay amount of `5000/- towards mental agony and `2000/- for the cost of the litigation. This order is under challenge. Appellants before the State Commission are the original opponents while the respondent is an original complainant. Grievance of the complainant is/was that the opponents were/are running a Computer Training Institution and both the opponents were/are partners of the said Computer Training Centre. Complainant had taken admission for Academic year 2008-2009 in the said institution on assurance that after completion of the course there would be 100% placement. Complainant stated that he had paid an amount of `5000/- on 11/11/2008 `20,000/- on 13/01/2009 and `15,000/- on 20/02/2009. Thus, amount of `40,000/- was paid by the complainant to the opponents. However, no examination was conducted in December 2009 and, then, in spite of assurance, the certificate of SAP was not issued to the complainant and, therefore, complainant had filed the complaint. Grievance of the complainant was/is that by giving false assurance of the certificate of SAP amount was taken from him. However certificate was not given and also amount was not returned. Opponents were served and they have contested the complaint. Though the opponents have contested the claim, they have only given reasons as to why examination cannot be completed and certificate cannot be given. However, that cannot be a ground. It is an admitted position on record that the amount of `40,000/- was paid by the complainant and the examination was not conducted. Not only that even certificate as assured was not given to the complainant. Fact that what are the efforts made by the appellants to hold examination cannot be exonerating circumstance in favour of the appellants. We find no substance in appeal. Appeal is hereby rejected.
Pronounced on 23rd August, 2011.
