Per :- Mr. J. L. Deshpande, President Place : Bandra -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- ::::: JUDGMENT ::::: Facts giving rise to this complaint may be stated, in brief, as follows :- The Complainant had joined the Opponent- Institute for six months full time course of Post – Graduate Diploma in Banking Operations which started from 07th November, 2007. There was three months class room training and three months Internship. The Complainant was sent to ICICI Bank for Internship training since it is affiliated to the Opponent – Institute. 2 It is the case of the Complainant that from 25th January, 2008 onwards, he was posted at Rural Operation Group at Lower Parel, Mumbai and then was transferred to CMR Dispatch Department at Andheri, Chandevali, where he had to work in Dispatch Department. The work assigned to him was filling envelops for banking password and stamping the envelop and labeling the same. He was not imparted any branch banking training. The Complainant during the course of internship had sent letter to administrator of the Opponent to transfer him for branch banking. This was followed by letter to President of the Opponent but there was no response. On the contrary, in the letter sent after six months the President of the Opponent favored the ICICI Bank. Thus the Complainant claims that the entire exercise became futile. The Complainant had deposited course fee in sum of Rs.67,416/- with the Opponent. Since the Complainant was not given proper training during internship, he could not acquire any knowledge about branch banking and the fees deposited by him had gone waste. Making allegations of deficiency in service against the Opponent, the Complainant has claimed refund of fees amount in sum of Rs.67,416/- and compensation in sum of Rs.30,000/- total sum of Rs.97,416/-. 3 The Opponent – Institute contested the complaint by filing written statement and took stand that the Complainant has expressed grievance only after internship period was over. The Opponent – bank denied substance in his grievance and referred to the assignment submitted by the Complainant on line by which he had expressed satisfaction about the internship and how it was fruitful to him. The Opponent, further, took stand that profile of internship training is decided by the partner – bank (here ICICI Bank) according to their need and requirement. The Opponent was neither authorized nor justified in making suggestion to ICICI Bank with regard to profile of the Complainant. Thus the Opponent – bank denied the allegations that during internship the Complainant was not given training of practical banking and exercise was worthless. 4 The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement and reiterated the allegations made in the complaint. 5 Both the sides, filed their affidavit of evidence and documents. They also filed their written arguments. We have gone through the pleadings, affidavits and written arguments. 6 Following points arise for our consideration and our findings thereon are as follows :- Nos. | Points | Findings | 1 | Whether the Complainant has proved that the Opponent is guilty of deficiency in service with regard to internship training ? | No | 2 | What order ? | Complaint dismissed |
REASONS FOR FINDINGS : 7 The course was divided in two phases and in the first phase – which started in November, 2007 and completed in January, 2008 there was class room training, regarding which the Complainant has expressed no grievance. It was at the Opponent – Institute. Next phase of the course was internship from 25th January, 2008 for which the Complainant was sent to ICICI Bank which is affiliated to the Opponent. The Complainant’s grievance pertains to this phase. 8 During internship, according to the Complainant, following was nature of work extracted from him Day Wise Work During Internship · For first 11 days he was in ROG group. · On 11th February, he was transferred to CMR Dispatch Team on requirement. · 3 weeks he was making 5 to 6 calls a day to courier agencies for asking the status of consignment. · End of February he was again send to other Team RPC.. For Salary Processing · In month of March he was in CMR only doing E Learning for some days and again at the end of March he was send to Fort Churchgate on Requirement for Cheque Defacing and signature verification. · In month of April again on Requirement … he was given work of HFC like filing envelops for Internet Banking password and Stamping the envelopes, labeling the envelops whole day. · Some time during this Internship he was given Manual work like scanning the returned; cheque books in Lots which was done by GMS Boys and HFC staff. · Most of the work given to me in Internship was of GMS and HFC staff. · Most of the work given to me in Internship was of HFC staff and GMS Boys for this type of work he successfully completed my BMS and IFBI “PGDBO” course. 9 The Complainant in his complaint has alleged that he talked to administrator of the Opponent and forwarded letter, dated, 18th February, 2008 making request to transfer him on branch banking. Next letter, sent by the Complainant was PPT on line on 14th May, 2008 but it was not to the Opponent and in any case, after the internship was over on 30th April, 2008. The Complainant’s letter, dated, 30th May, 2008 addressed to the President of the Opponent and next letter, dated, 16th July, 2008 over after the internship was over. The Opponent vide his reply letter, dated, 8th August, 2008, replied the Complainant’s letter, dated, 16th July, 2008 and highlighted as to how the work assign to him by ICICI was useful. The Complainant replied that letter, vide his letter, dated, 20th August, 2008 and reiterated grievance that it was actually work in the Dispatch Department. 10 We have gone through all the letters sent by the Complainant to the Opponent and we find that barring the first letter, dated, 18th February, 2008 at annexure-2, the Complainant had sent all the letters after the internship was over. This fortifies stand taken by the Opponent that the Complainant started expressing grievance after the course was successfully completed. Conduct of the Complainant, in not sending these letters, while the course was in progress militates to his contention that he was not at all satisfied with the assignment given to him. 11 The Complainant in his affidavit of rejoinder has stated that while internship was in progress, he used to see administrative of the Institute and President and used to ventilate his grievance about the assignment and also referred to entries in the visitors book to substantiate his statement. Those entries are not on the record. The Complainant has not collected copies of the same and has not produced for the perusal of the Forum. Thus the barring letter, dated, 18th February, 2008, there is no material on the record while internship was on, the Complainant had expressed grievance about the assignment given to him. 12 The Opponent in its written statement has referred to the submission made by the Complainant regarding his impressions of the course and has produced copy of the same at annexure –B to the written statement. It was in the question answer form. There were in all five questions put to the Complainant, which the Complainant replied in detail. Under first question, he was asked one key learning through the entire course including internship. The Complainant in reply described utility of the training and stated that through classroom training and internship, he got confidence. In reply to the question no.2, the Complainant stated that in internship, he learned and practiced the way and style of communication which was taught to him in the classroom. Under question no.3, he replied that he picked up many skills and knowledge. Some of those are, really valuable for the career prospective. In reply to question no.5, the Complainant answered that operations in CMR were vital and elaborated that as a practical training it was very useful. 13 If one reads, copy of annexure-b appended to the written statement, one finds that after the course was over, the Complainant had showered lot of praise and there was no grumbling. In the affidavit of rejoinder as filed the Complainant, we do not find any explanation from the Complainant as to why he had given these compliments to the Opponent – Institute which were contrary to his grievances in the complaint. This conduct again militates to the conduct of the Complainant in expressing grievance about the internship as worthless. 14 In view of the above facts, we find substance in the defense taken by the Opponent in its written statement and at the same time, we find that the Complainant has failed to substantiate his grievance in the complaint. With this, we proceed to pass the following order. ::::: ORDER ::::: (1) The complaint stand dismissed with no order as to costs. (2) Certified copies of this order to be furnished to both the parties, free of costs, as per rule.
| | [HONABLE MRS. Mrs.DEEPA BIDNURKAR] Member[HONABLE MR. Mr. J. L. Deshpande] PRESIDENT[HONABLE MR. MR.V.G.JOSHI] Member | | 
