DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION 

NORTH 24 PGS., BARASAT.

C.C. No. 488/2018

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

              26.12.2018                               08.01.2019                              04.05.2023

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

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

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

JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER

The complainant filed the application under Section 12 read with Section 11 and 13 of the C.P. Act, 1986 as amended till date.

The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant after passing out of B.C.A. searching for a good job for placement but he did not get any suitable job was not available to him, so he prepared him for getting admission for the course of M.C.A.  At that time the opposite parties approached the complainant by undertaking to provide him a suitable job on completion of the course of SAP (System Application Product), ABAP (Advance Business Application Programme) under them. They also assured the complainant that the certificate which will be issued by them on completion of the said course will be enough to avail such suitable job. Being influenced by the opposite parties the complainant sent a mail through his mail ID to the O.P. No.2 on 20.02.2017. Then the O.P. No2 sent a reply to the complainant through E-mail dated 21.02.2017 and he sent a placement report. The opposite parties also sent a mail to the complainant on 23.02.2017 by giving a performance report as well as the other particulars of activities of ATOS India Pvt. Ltd including the course fees. The complainant after receiving the mail of the opposite parties and being influenced by them paid an amount of Rs. 3,79,500/- only to the opposite parties according to their guide line or instruction after meeting with the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 at Millennium City, I.T. Park, Tower-2, 12^th and 13^th Floor, DN-62, Salt Lake, Sector –V, Kolkata-9.

It is further stated by the complainant that out of  Rs.3.79,500/-he paid Rs. 50,000/- 0n 22.02.2017 through a demand draft vide No. 278571 dated 20.02.2017 drawn on bank of India and Rs. 1,85,000/- was paid on 08.03.2017 through a demand draft vide No. 278572 dated 03.03.2017 drawn on Bank of India and the rest Rs. 1,44,500/- was paid on 29.03.2017 through a demand draft vide No. 278575 drawn on Bank of India and got admission on28.03.2017.It is also stated by the complainant that the duration of the said course was 20 working days and the complainant attended all the classes for such course without fail.

Contd/-2

C.C. No. 488/2018

:: 2 ::

Subsequently the complainant got e-mail from the O.P. no.2  on 15.03.2017 that SAP batch was going to be lunched at ATOS Kolkata Campus on 20.03.2017 and according to their commitment the ASC Foundation class of the complainant would be conducted on 18 and 19.03.2017 and they requested the complainant to represent at the training centre by 09..30 a.m. on 18.03.2017 at the office address of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3. It is further case of the complainant that he successfully pass such course with good marks and the opposite parties issued certificate vide ID No. 0017372436 on 17.05.2017 prior to that the O.P. No.2 also issued a certificate of Attendance on 14.04.2017. On 19.09.2017 the complainant got mail from the O.P.N.3 who asked him to present at Bangalore location for an interview and accordingly the complainant went there but in vain.

It is alleged by the complainant that even after passing out the course successfully the opposite parties did not take any effective steps for his placement and hey evade to discharge their obligations by giving placement to the complainant with any company. Being frustrated finally the complainant served a notice dated 03.12.2018 upon the opposite parties through his Ld. Advocate but in spite of receiving the said notice the opposite parties did not take any fruitful steps over the matter which should be considered as deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and which compelled the complainant to file this case against the opposite parties with a prayer to give direction for refunding the amount of Rs. 3,79,500/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. and also give direction to the opposite parties to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- for harassment and deficiency in service along with litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-.

The O.P. Nos. 1,2 and 3 have contested the petition of complaint by filing written version denying all the material allegations level against them. It is the case of the opposite parties that the allegations made by the complainant against them are baseless and the complainant has no cause of action to file this case.

It is the further case of the opposite parties that the complainant was associated with them to acquire training in regards to SAP Academy and was giving training from 20.03.2017 till 14.04.2017. After successfully completing the said course he was certified that SAP Certified Development Associate – ABAP with SAP net Weaver 7.40. Subsequently the name of the companies were disclosed to the complainant by them for his replacement vide e-mail dated 23.02.2017. The opposite party further stated that the complainant given unanimous opportunities to sit in various interviews but he never could be able to crack any of the said interview. He was given total 10 placement opportunities but was unable to crack them and he failed to satisfy the selectors.

It is further stated by the opposite parties it was not their responsibility to give employment to the training like the complainant but it was their responsibility to make arrangement for getting platform for replacement but the complainant even after getting several opportunities failed to qualify for the interview. So, the complainant illegally blamed the opposite parties and deficiency if any is on the part of the complainant that even after getting ample opportunities he could not be able to crack any of the said interviews. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the contesting opposite parties.

As per O.Ps case the petition of complaint is baseless, all the allegations are denied as false and misconceived and having no cause of action to be dismissed with cost.

In view of the above stated pleadings the points for consideration will be as followed

C.C. No. 488/2018

:: 3 ::

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.

It is nobody’s case that this consumer Forum / Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case. In spite of the same it is the legal obligation of this Consumer Forum Commission to see whether it has jurisdiction to try this case or not.

On a close scrutiny of the materials on record and also considering the position of law it is found that this Forum / Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case. It is also found that the complainant has filed the case within statutory period of limitation from the date of cause of action. So the case is well maintainable in the eye of law. Apparently from the materials on record and the documents as filed by the complainant from money receipts dated  22.02.2017, 08.03.2017, 29.03.2017 it is found that the complainant paid money for getting admission inn ATOS , SAP Education, Kolkata governed by the opposite parties which has also been admitted by the opposite parties in their written version as well as in their evidence and argument.  From which it is revealed that undoubtedly the complainant is a consumer within the ambit of C.P. Act, 1986 and the opposite parties are the service provider.

Let us see whether there is / was any short of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties  or not?

It is the case of the complainant that for the Schedule course fee he paid Rs. 3,79,500/- in total on several occasions which have been admitted by the O.Ps in its written version. But it is O.P’s case that they arrange for several opportunities for the interview of the complainant but the complainant failed to qualify all those interviews. Hence he did not get any job. When it is admitted fact that the O.Ps have received Rs. 3,79,500/- on several dates from the complainant on assurance of giving him training in course  to SAP academy  but he did not get the job has assured by the opposite parties ultimately even on repeated requests made by the complainant the opposite parties did not refund the amount paid by the complainant. Though it is the plea of the opposite parties that they made several opportunities to the complainant to get job through interview but the complainant failed to crack those opportunities but initially when they received the money from the complainant as course fees with assurance of giving  job then they evade from their responsibility and liability. When they failed to keep their assurance then it was their duty to refund the amount to the complainant. But they did not do the same.

Under such circumstances from the materials on record, evidence and documents as submitted by the parties to this case it is revealed that the opposite parties neglected to keep their words in respect of the giving job to the complainant and caused the harassment, mental pain and agony by non refunding the amount paid by the complainant which should be considered as deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

C.C. No. 488/2018

:: 4 ::

Hence in view of discussion as made above the Forum/ Commission opined that the complainant is a consumer and the opposite parties are the service providers. It is also opined that there is sufficient deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complainant could be able to prove his case beyond doubt all reasonable doubt. and is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

All the points for consideration are thus decided favorably to the complainant .

The case is properly stamped.

Hence,

                       Ordered

that the case be and the same is decreed on contest against all the opposite parties with cost.

The complainant do get the decree as prayed for.

The opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 3,79,500/- to the complainant either jointly or severally along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this case till realization within 45 days from the date of this order.

The opposite parties are further directed to give compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to the complainant either jointly or severally along with litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/- which is payable within 45 days from the date of this 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 as per

 Dictated & Corrected by me                      

 President

 Member                                                                                 Member