DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NORTH 24 PGS., BARASAT.

C.C. No. 487/2018

Date of Filing:                      Date of Admission:             Date of Disposal:

                 26.12.2018                                     08.01.2019                         11.05.2023

P R E S E N T                       :- Smt. Sukla Sengupta…………….President

                  :-  Smt. Monisha Shaw ……………Member.

            :- Sri Abhijit Basu………………….Member.

JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER

            The Complainant has filed the petition of complaint U/s 12 r/w section 11 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended till date.

            The fact of the case in brief is that the Complainant after passing out B. Tech (C.S.E.) was searching for a good job or placement to establish rather make his future but he did not avail any good job, at that time the Opposite Parties approached the Complainant by undertaking to provide him a suitable job on completion of the SAP (System Application Product), A.B.A.P (Advance Business Application Programming) under them and they also induced the Complainant that the certificate would be issued by them in favour of the Complainant on completion of the said course which is enough to avail any suitable job and they are under obligation for placement of the Complainant to that extent.

            It is further stated by the Complainant in his petition of complaint that being influenced by the Opposite Parties the Complainant communicated the Opposite Party No. 2 and the Opposite Party No. 2 sent a reply to the Complainant through email dated 12/04/2017 and thereby get the performance report as well as the other particulars of activities of ATOS India Pvt. Ltd., including the course fees and the Opposite Party No. 2 also informed the Complainant about SAP Knowledge Session Invitation by email dated 18/04/2017. Thereafter the Complainant on good faith and without having any alternative paid an amount of Rs. 3,73,750/- (three lakhs seventy three thousand seven hundred and fifty) only to the Opposite Parties according to their instruction after meeting the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 at Millennium City, I.T. Park, Tower-2, 12^th and 13^th Floor, DN-62, Salt Lake, Sector –V, Kolkata- 700091 out of which an amount of Rs. 65,000/- was paid on 05/05/2017 through NEFT and the rest amount was also paid through the SBI, Bhubaneshwar Branch. The Complainant further stated that the said course was of 20 working days and he attended all the classes for such course without any negligence. He took the personal loan amounting to Rs. 2,54,000/- (two lakhs fifty four thousand) through SBI, Kushalaganga Branch at Bhubaneshwar to pay the amount and the EMI for liquidation of such loan has been deducted from the salary account from the father of the Complainant which is still continuing. The course was started by the Opposite Parties on 15/05/2017.

Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./

: :  2  : :

C.C. No. 487/2018

It is the further case of the Complainant that he succeeds to pass such course with good marks and the opposite parties issued certificate vide ID No. 0017576327 on 10.07.2017 and prior to that the O.P. No.2 also issued a certificate of attendance on 09.06.2017. On 18.09.2017 the complainant received an mail from the O.P. No. 3 who asked the Complainant to present at Bangalore location for an interview, the Complainant attended the interview but no good return received by him. It is alleged by the Complainant that the Opposite Parties did not taking any positive initiation for his placement and sent only Tracker without having any feedback and so the Complainant finding no other alternative sent an e-mail on 12/12/2018 to the Opposite Party No. 2 and 3. It is stated by the Complainant that after sending such huge amount he has no more money with which he can take any effort to other way to earn money. Thereafter, being frustrated the Complainant served a notice dated 14/12/2018 addressing to the O.Ps through his Ld. Advocate Mr. Ananda Mohon Kundu for taking positive steps to the placement to the Complainant with any suitable job but in vain which caused deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties also caused harassment and mental agony to the Complainant as well as unfair trade practice.

            Under such circumstances, the Complainant requested the Opposite Parties to refund the amount paid by him but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to his request. Hence, the instant case is filed by the Complainant with a prayer to give direction to the Opposite Parties to refund the amount of Rs. 3,73,750/- (three lakhs seventy three thousand seven hundred and fifty) with interest @ 18% and also give direction to the Opposite Parties to pay compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs through the Complainant for mental trauma, harassment and deficiency in service along with litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand).

            O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have contested the petition of complaint filed by the Complainant by filing a written version / written statement denying all the materials allegations levied against them. The Opposite Parties have denied the allegations made by the Complainant and stated that the petition of complaint is baseless and the Complainant has no cause of action to file the same.

            It is further stated by the Opposite Parties that the subject matter of this case is beyond the ambit of consumer dispute and thus the Commission has no jurisdiction to try the same.

            The O.Ps further stated in written version that the Complainant was associated with the Opposite Parties in order to acquire training in regards to SAP Academy and was giving training from 15^th May, 2017 till 9^th June, 2017 and after successfully completing the said course the Complainant has got a certificate of attendance and SAP Global Certification wherein he was certified as SAP Certified Development Associate – ABAP with SAP NetWeaver 7.50.

            The Opposite Parties further stated that they have arranged for campus selection of the Complainant and disclosed the past companies that recruited other students and accordingly the names of those companies were also provided to the Complainant vide the email dated 12/04/2017 but the Complainant was never able to crack any of the said interviews. The Complainant has got total 11 placements opportunities but he was unable to agreed the same and in some interviews they deliberately failed to show up during the interview process and under such circumstances the Opposite Parties would not be held responsible for the failure of the Complainant to meet with expectations of the employers/companies for getting selection. It was the responsibilities of the Opposite Parties to provide and arrange the platform of the Complainant for placement and they have justified their responsibilities but the Complainant could not be able to show his ability to be selected in the interviews so question of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties does not arise at all.

            As per O.Ps case the petition of complaint is malafide and not tenable in the eye of law. Thus the same is liable to be dismissed with cost.

            In view of the above stated facts and circumstances it has to be decided by this Commission.

Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./

: :  3  : :

C.C. No. 487/2018

1. Is the case is maintainable in its present form and law?
2. Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
3. Is the complainant a consumer within the ambit of C.P. Act, 1986?
4. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
5. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
6.  What other relief or reliefs is the complainant entitled to get?

Decision with Reasons

All the points for consideration are taken up together for convenience and discussion and to avoid unnecessary litigations.

On a close scrutiny of the materials on record as well as the position of law it is revealed before this Commission has jurisdiction to try this and the case is well maintainable in the eye of law.

It is the case of the Complainant that being approached by the Opposite Parties he agreed to get admission in SAP (System Application Product), A.B.A.P (Advance Business Application Programming) for getting a good job as conducted by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant communicated the Opposite Party No. 2, in response the O.P. No. 2 sent him the email on 12/04/2017 and get the performance report as well as the other opportunities of activities of ATOS India Pvt. Ltd. including the course fees. From the evidence on record it is further revealed that the Opposite Party No. 2 also informed the Complainant about SAP Knowledge Session Invitation by email dated 18/04/2017 from the documentary as well as evidence-in-chief on record of both the parties of this case. It is revealed that admittedly the Complainant paid Rs. 3,73,750/- (three lakhs seventy three thousand seven hundred and fifty) to the Opposite Parties out of which Rs. 65,000/- (sixty five thousand) was paid on 05/05/2017 through NEFT and the rest amount was also paid through the SBI, Bhubaneshwar Branch.

From the evidence on record it is also proved that the Complainant took personal loan amounting Rs. 2,54,000/- (two lakhs fifty four thousand) from SBI, Kushalaganga Branch at Bhubaneshwar for which the EMI of liquidation of such loan has been deducted from the salary account of his father which is still continuing.

It is also admitted fact that the Complainant did not get any good job or placement in any company as assured by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties in evidence as well as written version stated that they have arranged for several interviews on several offices for the Complainant but the Complainant could not be able to crack the opportunities but when they received the money of Rs. 3,73,750/- (three lakhs seventy three thousand seven hundred and fifty) they assured the Complainant that the Complainant will definitely get the good placement / job in any company if he undergone the course offered by the Opposite Parties but ultimately they did not take any responsibilities to fulfill the wish or dream of the Complainant which they assured the Complainant at the time of getting money  of Rs. 3,73,750/- (three lakhs seventy three thousand seven hundred and fifty).

Subsequently, after getting the certificate vide i.d. 0017576777 dated 10/07/2017 issued by the Opposite Parties the Complainant did not take any good job / result as assured by the Opposite Parties earlier and the Complainant became frustrated. He has passed out B.Tech (CSE) but did not get any job and being influenced by the Opposite Parties being an unemployed he paid a huge amount of money i.e. of Rs. Rs. 3,73,750/- (three lakhs seventy three thousand seven hundred and fifty) and at the time of taking the money the Opposite Parties assured him that they arrange for a good job for the Complainant but practically by

Contd. To Page No. 4 . . . ./

: :  4  : :

C.C. No. 487/2018

practicing their unfair trade practice they ditched the Complainant and grab the money. The Complainant requested them to refund the amount but the Opposite Parties denied their responsibilities and did not return the money which should be considered as deficiency in service on their part. Admittedly, when they received the money from the Complainant the Complainant is the consumer within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Opposite Parties are the service provider but the Opposite Parties neglected to perform their responsibilities as they assured for giving a good job to the Complainant and received the money to that effect. But ultimately they did not keep their word and on good faith the Complainant has been trapped by them and the Opposite Parties giving false assurance grab the money from him which is out and out deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties as the service provider and they are liable to compensate the Complainant for their negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

In view of the discussion made above this Forum opined that the Complainant is a consumer within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Opposite Parties being the service providers failed to satisfy the Complainant and failed to keep their assurance for giving a good job to him which amounts to deficiency in service on their part and thus it can safely be held by this Commission that the Complainant could be able to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt against the Opposite Parties and he is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

All the points for consideration are thus decided favourably to the Complainant.

The case is properly stamped.

Hence,

Ordered

            That the case being no. C.C./487/2018 be and the same is decreed on contest against all the Opposite Parties with the cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand).

The Complainant do get a decree as prayed for.

The Opposite Parties are directed to refund an amount of Rs. 3,73,750/- (three lakhs seventy three thousand seven hundred and fifty) to the Complainant either jointly or severally along with interest @ 9% p.a. of the said amount from the date of filing of this case till realization within 45 days from this date of order.

The Opposite Parties are further directed to give compensation to the Complainant of Rs. 40,000/- (forty thousand) either jointly or severally along with litigation cost of Rs. 10,000 (ten thousand) which is payable within 45 days from this date of order in default the Complainant will be at liberty to execute the decree as per law.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.

 Dictated & Corrected by me                      

 President

 Member                                                         Member                                              President