Date of Filing: 21/06/2011
Date of Order: 13/07/2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 13th DAY OF JULY 2011
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 1133 OF 2011
Mr. Vineet Ahluwalia,
Aged About 24 years,
S/o. V.P. Ahluwalia,
R/at: ALR Nivas, No.101,
Maruthinagar, 1st Main,
4th Cross, Madiwala,
BANGALORE-560 068.
(Rep. by Sri.Siji Malayil & Associates
Sri. Rajashekar, Advocates) Complainant.
-V/s-
M/s. Vyom Technosoft Pvt. Ltd.,
235, ‘O’/2, Bommasandra Industrial Area Phase 3,
Hosur Road, Bangalore-560 099,
Rep. by Amit Mathur, H.R. Manager. Opposite party.
BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
ORDER
The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complaint made under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.57,500/-, are necessary:-
The complainant joined the opposite party company as a software engineer trainee, as the opposite party has assured that the complainant will be given good training and for which they pay Rs.5,000/- per month as stipend. The complainant paid Rs.50,000/- on 09.05.2010 to the opposite party which the opposite party has under taken to return the same, but no training was given. There were no proper equipment or advice or training. The complainant informed the opposite party about the uselessness of working and he was cheated. The complainant tendered resignation on 21.06.2010. As he was cheated and defrauded he asked the opposite party to refund Rs.50,000/- and Rs.7,500/- for 45 days. Even Mr. Vivekanandan also faced the same problem. The opposite party has no right to retain the amount. Hence a notice was issued, as it was not complied this complaint is filed.
2. Heard.
3. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
- Whether there exists a prima facie case of deficiency in service?
- What order?
4. Our findings on the above points are:-
Point (A) & (B) : As per the final order
For the following:-
REASONS
POINT (A) & (B):-
5. In this case on perusing the documents and the complaint and hearing the complainant this Forum has directed the complainant to produce the service agreement entered in to between the parties, but on 08.07.2011 no such service agreement was produced before this forum by the complainant. Hence the complainant was heard again.
6. In this case it is seen from the records that the opposite party on 07.05.2010 has given an offer letter to the complainant which reads thus:-
“This is with reference to your application in our organization for the post of Software Engineer Trainee.
We are pleased to appoint you in our organization as a Software Engineer – Trainee from 10th May 2010. We wish our best wishes for professional growth in our organization.”
That is to say on the application of the complainant the complainant was appointed by the opposite party as a software engineer – trainee from 10.05.2010. On this on 09.05.2010 the complainant has given a cheque for Rs.50,000/- to the opposite party. In this regard the opposite party on 10.05.2010 has issued a letter which reads thus:-
“Received with thanks from Mr. Vineet Ahluwalia, a sum of Rs.50,000/- by PNB cheque on account of Employment service Agreement amount.
The above amount will be returned back without interest, only on the successful completion of the Service Agreement Period of 2 years.”
That is to say this amount of Rs.50,000/- has been received by the opposite party on account of the employment service agreement. Hence the complainant was bound to produce such service agreement, but he has not produced it. Hence an adverse inference has to be drawn against the complainant.
7. Even otherwise in the said receipt dated: 10.05.2010 as stated supra it is clearly stated that this amount with interest will be returned to the complainant only on the successful completion of the service agreement of two years. That means only after 10.05.2012 if the complainant completes the service agreement period then alone he is entitled to the interest and Rs.50,000/-, but this complaint is filed on 21.06.2011 hence it is premature.
8. Even otherwise it is further seen that the complainant on 21.06.2010 in just one month 16 days after the alleged payment has tendered the resignation and left the job. The said letter of resignation reads thus:-
“Fascinated by your so called ISO 9001:2000 Status, 150 seater office in Bangalore and promised training with a stipend of Rs.5,000/- during the training period, I joined your company as a Software Engineer on 10th May, 2010 after handing over a cheque of Rs.50,000/- as a refundable security deposit. Contrary to your claims, I found myself cheated and defrauded in the name of training, good work-culture with non-payment of promised stipend even. I, therefore, tender my resignation with immediate effect and request you to refund my security deposit with interest along with my promised stipend money immediately, otherwise, the matter will be reported to the competent authorities.”
That is to say the complainant has abandoned the service of the opposite party, abandoned the training and he wanted refund of the security deposit from the opposite party.
9. In this regard the complainant had issued a notice to the opposite party on 31.01.2011 to which the opposite party has replied on 19.02.2011 in which the opposite party has stated thus:-
“It is true to state that your client had deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.278290 dated: 09.05.2010 drawn on Punjab National Bank as stated in this paragraph. My client instructs me to state that my client had entered into Service Agreement dated: 10.05.2010 with you client. In terms of this Agreement your client had specifically agreed that the said sums shall be refunded after successful completion of service period and as per the said Agreement the service period is for a period of 2 years from the date of joining the Company excluding any leaves. This amount was deposited with clear understanding that if the employee namely your client does not complete the service period of 2 years the sums would be forfeited. This was provided to cover the expenses incurred by my client in recruiting, training and other such expenses incurred by them. Therefore, your client had entered into a binding contract with my client.
That is say a service agreement has been entered in to between the parties and according to the terms of the agreement Rs.50,000/- has been paid to the opposite party so that it can give training to the complainant and only after the period of two years if the complainant successfully completes the training the amount will be given back and if the training is not completed the amount will be forfeited. This has been provided to cover the expenses incurred by the opposite party regarding the recruiting, training and the other allied expenses. This has not been denied by the complainant. Why the complainant has suppressed the service agreement? There is no answer.
10. According to the terms of the contract if the complainant leaves the job then the opposite party is entitled to forfeit the security deposit. In this case the complainant has left the service of the opposite party unilaterally on 21.06.2010, just one month and 12 days after he paid the security deposit and join the services. Hence there cannot be any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice.
11. Here no where in the complaint it is stated that the action of the opposite party in not returning the money is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service. What the complainant has stated is, he has been cheated and defrauded in not giving training and he was not given stipend. No document produced by the complainant shows that the opposite party had agreed to give any stipend to the complainant. When the complainant himself has paid money to the opposite party for getting trained the question of the opposite party paying stipend does not arise. If there is an oral agreement in that regard the complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court seeking appropriate relief.
12. If the opposite party has not imparted training to the satisfaction of the complainant as a result the complainant abandoned the services the same has to be established in a Civil Court or in a Criminal Court as the case may be; this will not come within the ambit and scope of deficiency in service. The action of the opposite party as per the entire allegation of the complainant comes within the ambit and scope of Industrial Disputes Act between the workman and the management and this will not come with the ambit and scope of the Consumer Protection Act. If the complainant is entitled to, he can raise the industrial dispute in accordance with law for which this order will not come in that way. If there is any breach of contract the remedy of the complainant is to approach the Civil court. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Dismissed.
2. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
3. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 13th Day of July 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
