BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 27^thDAY OF NOVEMBER 2024

SMT. SUMA ANILKUMAR, MEMBER:-

1. The complaint filed U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, complainant seeking direction towards OP’s for the following reliefs:-

1. Direct the OP to facilitate a job opportunity to the complainant.
2. Direct the OP to refund the course fees of Rs.1,86,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Eighty-Six Thousand) for having received from the unsecured loan towards course fees.
3. Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) as compensation for the mental hardship, agony and harassment meted by the complainant at the hands of OP.
4. Direct the OP to pay the cost of the proceedings to the complainant; and
5. Grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court has deems fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

The complainant submits that in the month of December 2022 she was searching for potential and challenging job in order to excel in her career, as a degree holder (B.sc, PCM). While searching in the internet, the complainant came across OP Company on its registered website known as www.simpliilearn.com . The complainant to build her initial step towards the great career came across the OP’s boot-camp program and after completing the entire boot-camp program the complainant had the impression that she may require such requisite skill which may be essential to progress in her career. The complainant was also promised by OP’s representative that after completion of the said course of participated candidates will get guaranteed job in that stream. The OP’s website initially boosted that worlds No.1 online boot-camp and one of the leading certification training providers and had partnered that various companies and individuals to achieve goals of the said program. The complainant submits that the OP had promised that after completion of the course every individuallearned shall be placed in one of the top fortunate 500 companies and startups which was termed as a guarantee job in various stream such as Data / ML / Analysis space. The OP’s representative had also promised 100% refund to the candidates if they are not able to get placed in any company of their alleged tied up top companies and startups within 70-80 days from the completion of said course.

3. The complainant submits that priordata to opting the career course an entrance exam was held by OP in which the complainant had successfully cleared and qualified for simpliilearnData Science job guarantee program. The complainant further submit that as it was a huge financial burden on her to pay fees for the said career program, the OP’s representative offered complainant solution by introducing her to  opt for an insecured loan from one of the tied-up lenders.Believing OP’s fake promises and assurance, the complainant borrowed an unsecured loan close to Rs.1,86,000/- with an interest of 11.96% from the OP’stied-up lender. The complainant with great difficulty after gathering some stages of career program and with great hardship had finally completed the said course within stipulated time. The OP company had provided credentials of few job portal memberships such as IAM jobs (it is collaborated with Naukari) and Hirist is only pertaining to caters to techno management roles for which senior and senior high quality technical roles to the complainant, to which the complainant had tried to applyin such portal where it showed as “OP is not subscribed yet.” The complainant searched other job portalson her own but did not get any fruitful results. On several request and demand by the complainant,the OP representative had given some job vacancy portal and coerced her to apply a minimum of 50 jobs per month but practically this target had become herculean task for most of the job aspirants with no outcome. On several attempts the complainant could not seek job even after completing 180 days from the completion of course. The complainant submits that she highly sensesa doubt on OP alleged companies collaboration and the whole program is a sham and OP company representative are targeting candidates in search of decent jobs. The complainant waited for nearly 6 months hoping she would get placement as assured by the OP but all in vain. Complainants parent is paying a monthly EMI of Rs.8,630/- towards unsecure bank loan known as “Liqui Loans”. The complainant’s parents have invested their hard earned money in the course. The complainant has been suffering mental agony, humiliation from her parents, relatives and friends. The complainant did not get any job nor refund of the money as promised by the OP even after several request and mails sent to the OP by her. Left with no choice the complainant issued legal notice on 14/09/2023, but the OP did not respond. Left with no choice, the complainant had to file complaint against OP, hence this complaint.

4. On issue of notice to OP, OP appears before this commission and file its version.

5. In the version of the OP. the OP submit that it is engaged in providing online boot-camp for digital economy skill training. OP offers access to world class work ready training to individuals and businesses, worldwide by running various courses and programs. OP’s boot-camps are designed and delivered with world renowned universities, top corporations, a leading industry bodies via online classes featuring top industrypractioners, sought-after trainers, and global leaders. The OP states that the contents and averments made against the OP are denied in totally and is liable to be dismissed against OP.

6. The OP is providing “online education training” imparting knowledge, skill and training to various participants, who enroll themselves in different online courses / programs being offered by OP. The OP further refers to case by Honorable National Commission “Manu Solanki and Others v/s VinayakaMission University” 2020 SCC online NCDRC 7, held that

7. “It is clarified that even if there is a defect / deficiency / unfair trade practice in the services offered by the private bodies in offering these courses and are not regulated and do not confer any Degree or Diploma recognized by any Approved Authority do fall within the ambit of definition of Educational Institutions and hence the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain the same.”

8. The OP is not a “service provider” but an online platform where the participants from across the globe enroll themselves for the purpose of gaining the education, training, skills, knowledge etc, while participating in different course / programs. OP further submits that the complainant is not “Consumer” as defined under section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, the OP submits that the complainants claim to have enrolled in the Data Science job guarantee  boot-camp program wherein job placement was assured upon completion was never enrolled by the complainant. On the contrary the complainant had enrolled in post graduate program on Data Science on 12/12/2022 for some of Rs.1,88,299.92/-, which did not offer job guarantee but promised job assistants to its learners. The complainant’s allegations against the OP is with malicious contention to manipulate the truth to serve its interest at the cost and expenses of OP. As per the course brochure the complainant becomes eligible to apply for job assistance program, upon successful completion of course, which includes sharing the complainants profile with platform such as IIM jobs and HIRIST. This information was explicitly communicated to the complainant via email on 01/08/2023. The job guarantee program as alleged by the complainant is a separate program and not associated with the said course. This distinction has been reiterated to the complainant via onboarding mails and course brochure. The complainant received onboarding mail from IIM job for job assistant portals via email communication by IIM jobs dated 01/08/2023. Apart from that the complainant was granted access to get job portals namely IIM Jobs, Hiristvia subsequently email dated 31/10/2023. This demonstratesOP’s dedication to facilitate the complainant’s job search by providing timely access to essential research. The OP also denies that it never promised or assured the refund of the entire course fees,if the complainant is unable to secure a job. No such guarantee was evera part of terms and conditions provided by the OP for the said course. The OPhad only offered job assistance program which assisted learners in finding employment opportunities after successfullycompleting the said course. The OP further states that it would have considered the refund if there was a request made by the complainant within a period of 7 days from the date of purchase of the course, as per the criteria mentioned under the refund policy. The OP further states that the complainant is misleading the Commission and there is no deficiency in service on the partof OP and hence the complaint liable to be dismissed against OP.

9. The complainant has filed affidavit evidence along with 8 documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The OP has filed its affidavit evidence along with 6 documents marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.6. Both the complainant and OP file their written arguments. The complainant also files copies of Email communication.

10. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency of service on the part of OP?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief?

iii) What order?

11. Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

                        Point No.1:-Affirmative.

                        Point No.2:- Partly affirmative.

                        Point No.3:- As per the final order.

REASONS

12. Point No.1 and 2: These points are inter-connected to each other and for the sake of convenience, to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up together for common discussion.

13. On perusal of the documents submitted by the complainant and OP, it is true that the complainant has taken up a course on Data Science from OP on 12/12/2022 for an amount of Rs.1,88,299.92/-. Ex.P1 is a copy of the brochure issued by OP, submitted by the complainant, on observing the key features in the brochure, we see that a 100% refund is assured, if the complainant is not able to secure a job within 180 days of graduation. Ex.P6 are the copies of the payment of Rs.8,630.41/- made towards the EMI amount for the above said course in favourof OP dated 05/01/2023. This shows that the complainant has been taking burden of repayment of the loan. She had taken for her said course from the OP. On perusal of the documents submitted by OP, Ex.R2 which is an invoice copy of the payment of Rs.1,88,299.92/-made by the complainant for the course offered by the OP, it is true that the complainant has taken up post graduate program in Data Science from OP to which the OP admits. Ex.R3 is brochure of the course submitted by OP in which the key features do not mentioned about 100% refund. Ex.R4 are the Emails exchanged between complainant and OP. Ex.R5 is the copy of the terms and conditions of the refund policy of the OP.

14. Considering the above documents, it is true that the complainant has taken up job oriented course from OP after her completion of her degree (B.sc, PCM) expecting to get into good job, as Data Science is requirement for any openings of job in good companies. The complainant opted for the course from OP,looking into the factor that there is guarantee of 100% refund.If she would not be able to secure job within 180 days of the graduation program. The complainant has also gone for a loan for an amount of Rs.1,88,299.2/- with EMI Rs.8630.41/- on confidence that she would enter into the job immediately after the course and will be able to repay the said loan from within the periodallotted, but to her surprise had to face difficulties as she could not getany job or could not get any proper guidance by the OP to secure job. On observing Ex.P8 submitted by the complainant which are the Whatsapp conversation between the complainant and OP, we see that the OP puts a condition on the complainant that the OP will help in the job assistance,if the complainant would with-

15.Draw the case and on not doing so would stop the procedure of the job assistance. On observing Whatsapp conversation submitted by the OP along with the written arguments, we see that the OP has offered a refund of 40% to the complainant referring to an offer mentioned earlier through call. This shows that the OP though claim that there was no refund policy in the course opted by complainants has offered 40% refund just to withdraw the ease against OP. This amounts to unfair trade practice by OP. Looking into the conversations it is clear that the OP has tried to make lucrative offers to the complainant for the withdrawal of the case.This shows the OP’s wrong intention. The OP has offered attractive options to the complainant not only while taking up the course but also to withdraw the case. The OP has not fulfilled the promises made to the complainant. The OP has mislead the complainant with wrong promises and has also failed to repay or secure a job for the Complainant as promised. The OP has also tried to offer the Complainant lucrative offers and has also tried to threaten the Complainant to withdraw the case against it. This shows not only deficiency of service but also unfair trade practice by the OP.  Therefore the OP is directed to repay the amount of Rs.1,86,000/- with an interest of 8% from 12/12/2022 till realization. The OP’s further directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards mental harassment and physical strain and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation charges.

16. Point No.3: In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-

:ORDER:

1. Complainant filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, is allowed in part.
2. OP is directed to repay the amount of Rs.1,86,000/- with an interest of 8% from 12/12/2022 till realization.
3. OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation charges.
4. OP is directed to pay entire award amount within 45 days from the date of order failing which shall have to pay an interest of 10% per annum on the amount Rs.1,86,000/- from the date of such default till realization.
5. Furnish the copy of this order and return the extra pleadings and documents to the parties. With no cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 27^THday of NOVEMBER 2024)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;