AJAY KUMAR GUPTA Vs. VIVEK SINHA
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) RESPONDENT is an Institute providing education and training to the students. Appellant paid a sum of Rs. 70,000 for three months training with the assurance of a high
salaried job in India and America. Allegation of the appellant that the
respondent -Institute did not have a qualified faculty nor the expertise
and apparatus as assured in the advertisement and prospectus of the
respondent and he has suffered immensely because he had to give up his
job as an Accountant upon the assurance given by the respondent for a
well paid job. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed a complaint before
the District Forum which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 6th
February, 2002 on the ground that there was nothing on record to show
that the respondent did not have competent faculty for providing coaching
and also that the respondent had promised to provide a job after
completion of the training.
(2.) WE have perused the impugned order and find that the District Forum did not take note of allegations proved by the complainant by way
of affidavit as well as other facts in support of the allegations that
the faculty was neither qualified nor did it possess the expertise and
apparatus as assured in the documents like advertisement and prospectus
in as much as that the respondent did not even mention names of the
teachers, their qualifications in the advertisement or in the brochure
nor respondent refer to any past placements of the trainees and further
that there was no qualified staff at all.
(3.) IT is surprising that for a course as short as having duration of three months, a sum of Rs. 70,000 was charged by the respondent and to
expect a candidate to leave such a course hardly after a month and that
too after leaving the job is difficult to accept. This shows that the
faculty of the respondent was neither qualified nor did possess the
expertise nor the Institute had necessary apparatus for such a
prestigious course. Nothing prevented the respondent from furnishing the
list of candidates for placement purposes.
Any kind of fault, imperfection, shortcoming in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or
under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be
performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation
to any services amounts to deficiency in service.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.