DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2023
Filed on: 20/08/2019
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
CC No 319/2019
Between
COMPLAINANT
Jithin V.K, Sreelakam, Chemmanathur P.O. 673104, Vadakara, Kozhikode
VS
THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
- Salin Sakaria, Young India Design Society, White House, XXXVII/137 C, Kaloor Kadavanthra Road, Kadavanthra P.O., Kochi 682020
- Rajee Nair Sasidharan, Young India Design Society, White House, XXXVII/137 C, Kaloor Kadavanthra Road, Kadavanthra P.O., Kochi 682020
(Rep. by Adv. Vipin P. Varghese, Chamber No. 556, KHCAA Chambers, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam 682031)
FINAL ORDER
DB.Binu, President:
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint is filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant completed a diploma course in tools and die at NTTF College in Coimbatore in 2015. While searching for further studies, the complainant was introduced to the institution of the opposite party by senior students. Following their instructions, the complainant contacted the opposite party and took Keltron's entrance exam, believing it to be conducted by Keltron. Subsequently, the complainant enrolled in the course offered by the opposite parties. It was only later that the complainant realized the course was not affiliated with Keltron. The complainant paid the fee as demanded by the opposite party.
However, the classroom lacked proper furniture and a reliable internet connection. The complainant did not receive any of the facilities promised by the management. On September 1, 2017, the complainant received a course certificate from the opposite party. Despite completing the course, the complainant has been unable to secure employment. The complainant attributes this to the fact that the certificate issued by the opposite party is not recognized or approved. Additionally, the complainant was unable to obtain an internship due to the unregistered status of college of the opposite parties.
According to the complaint, the complainant seeks to recover Rs. 1,75,000 as the fee paid to the opposite party, along with Rs. 3,75,000 for the two years of loss and hardship suffered as a result of the opposite parties’ deceptive practices
2. Notice
Notices was issued from the Commission to the opposite parties. The opposite parties received the notice and filed their versions.
3) THE VERSION OF OPPOSITE PARTIES
The complainant willingly enrolled in a value-added Transportation and Design Course offered by Young India Design (YID), fully aware that YID was not a registered institute. The opposite parties claim that YID has always assisted students in securing internships and placements, despite not explicitly mentioning it in their communication. The complainant's inability to find a job is due to his own inefficiency and lack of technical skills. The opposite parties deny the allegation of inadequate infrastructure, stating that the same facilities were used by other students. They admit to providing limited internet access to prevent misuse and unauthorized software usage. YID's placement cell has received internship emails from companies, which are displayed on the notice board for students to apply individually. The opposite parties claim that the complainant never sought assistance for correcting his portfolio or sending his CV. YID is a registered society offering value-added courses, and the complainant's base technical course from Nettur Technical Training Foundation lacks recognition, making it difficult for him to find jobs. The opposite parties deny the allegations of not providing clay for models and prototypes, YID has supplied the necessary materials. The opposite parties challenge the complainant's vague claims of comments from companies, questioning their authenticity. The opposite parties request the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) Evidence
The complainant had produced 4 documents .
- Copy of the certificate issued by the opposite parties.
- Copy of the I.D Card issued by the opposite parties.
- Copy of the advanced stamped receipts issued by the opposite parties. ( 3 no )
- Copy of the photographs and other credentials of the opposite parties.
5) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
6) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
The complainant completed a Tool and Die diploma course at NTTF College in Coimbatore and enrolled in a course offered by the opposite parties, believing it to be affiliated with Keltron, but later realized it was not; however, despite paying the fee, the provided classroom had inadequate furniture and an unreliable internet connection, and after completing the course, the complainant struggled to find employment due to the lack of recognition of the certificate, seeking to recover fees paid and compensation for the period of hardship caused by the opposite party's deceptive practices.
The learned Counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the complainant willingly enrolled in Young India Design's (YID) value-added Transportation and Design Course, knowing that YID was not a registered institute. The opposing parties contend that YID has consistently aided students in securing internships and placements, even though it was not explicitly stated in their communication. They attribute the complainant's job search difficulties to their own incompetence and lack of technical skills. The opposite parties deny the accusation of inadequate infrastructure, stating that other students utilized the same facilities. They acknowledge providing limited internet access to prevent unauthorized software usage. YID's placement cell has received internship emails from companies, displayed on the notice board for individual student applications. The opposing parties assert that the complainant never sought assistance for portfolio correction or CV submission. YID is a registered society offering value-added courses, while the complainant's technical course from Nettur Technical Training Foundation lacks recognition, hindering their job prospects. The opposite parties dispute claims of not providing clay for models and prototypes, as YID has indeed supplied the necessary materials. They question the authenticity of the complainant's vague assertions about comments from companies. Ultimately, the opposite parties request the dismissal of the complaint along with costs.
The complainant has taken legal action to seek compensation for the inadequate service provided by the opposite parties. However, the case is evidence of the complainant. During the commission's session on 20.06.2023, the complainant was absent and did not have any representative present. The complainant has consistently failed to appear or demonstrate any ongoing interest in pursuing the case, despite being provided with multiple opportunities to do so.
In the case of SGS India Ltd Vs. Dolphin International Ltd 2021 AIR SC 4849 held that:
“19. The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service. In a Judgement of this Court reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. 4 , this court held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. “6. The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The complainant has, on facts, been found to have not established any wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent...” 20. This Court in a Judgment reported as Indigo Airlines v. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. 5, held the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the opposite party was primarily on the complaint. This Court held as under: - “28. In our opinion, the approach of the Consumer Fora is in complete disregard the principles of pleadings and burden of proof. First, the material facts constituting deficiency in service are blissfully absent in the complaint as filed. Second, the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the ground staff of the Airlines at the airport after issuing boarding passes was primarily on the respondents. That has not been discharged by them. The Consumer Fora, however, went on to unjustly shift the onus on the appellants because of their failure to produce any evidence. In law, the burden of proof would shift on the appellants only after the respondents/complainants had discharged their initial burden in establishing the factum of deficiency in service.”
In the catena of decisions, it has been established that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to demonstrate negligence or deficiency in service by presenting evidence before the commission. Mere allegations of negligence are insufficient to support the complainant's case. Consequently, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
After careful consideration, it has been determined that the issues (i to iv) do not favour the complainant. The contentions raised by the complainant are deemed to lack merit. Therefore, the following orders have been issued.
ORDER
Based on the aforementioned circumstances, the Commission has determined that the contentions raised by the complainant lack merit. As a result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 31st of July,2023 .
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 319/2019
Order Date: 31/07/2023
