UPTRON ACADEMY OF COMPUTER LEARNING Vs. RAJ KUMAR NEGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this order, three Appeal Nos.12/1998,13/1988 and 16/1998 are being disposed of as the facts are common. Only the complainants are different. The District Forum decided the complaints vide separate orders passed on September 11, 1997. The complaints were filed by Raj Kumar Negi, Vimal Kishore and Aseem Singh Sharma against the appellant, the opposite party - Uptron Academy of Computer Learning, Lucknow and the other opposite party-Patiala Computers Private Limited, Patiala alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in the matter of imparting training/education. A sum of Rs.10,000/- was collected by the opposite party from each of the students for admission in Diploma in Computer Science (DCS) in August, 1994. Such an examination was to be held in September/october, 1995 whereas it was only held on August 16,1996. During this period, the complainants were not supplied the course modules covered in the Diploma. They were also not provided support, help or counselling as was promised. Inspite of all this, the complainant had written final examination on August 16,1996 but the complainants were not awarded Diplomas. The opposite party-appellant submitted their version before the District Forum that the Company was situated in U. P. and it was a U. P. Government Undertaking. It had allowed Franchisee Centres at different places including one at Patiala to conduct the course within the stipulated period for each batch of students. Patiala Computer Centre was required to complete the course and to recommend the appellant the list of such students who had completed the course, who were to be sent question papers for the final examination and if there was any delay it was opposite party No.2, who was responsible. Opposite party No.2 was to get the modules from the appellant for circulation to students. The fee was collected by Patiala Centre, who was responsible to conduct the examination. Both the parties led their evidence on affidavits and documents. The complaints were allowed with the direction to the appellant to pay Rs.10,000/- to each of the complainants alongwith Rs.1,000/- towards costs. Hence these three appeals by the opposite party-Uptron Academy of Computers Learning.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that there was no contract of hiring services of the appellant. It was mutual arrangement between the appellant and the Patiala Centre on principal and principal basis to run the course as aforesaid; to conduct the examinations and grant of Diploma Certificates. Qua the appellant, the complainant was not a consumer as defined. This contention is devoid of merit. The course as a whole is to be taken into consideration for which a sum of Rs.10,000/- was charged from each of the complainants. It is immaterial as to how the amount charged from the complainants, was to be shared or appropriated inter se the opposite parties i. e. Patiala Centre or the appellant. Assuming that there was contract between the opposite parties and the complainant as such was not a party thereto, the complainants being the beneficiary of that contract having paid consideration for hiring services is a consumer as defined under Sec.2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act.

(3.) There was deficiency in rendering service as in August, 1996, the complainants were not permitted to take the examination. No appeal has been filed by Patiala Computers Private Limited, who was also burdened with the liability as above. Finding of deficiency in rendering service as recorded by the District Forum is affirmed. The District Forum rightly burdened the liability on the two opposite parties. The appeals are dismissed with costs of Rs.500/- in each appeal.