NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 3954-3955 OF 2010
(Against the order dated 01.07.2010 in Appeal No. FA-09/12 of the
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi )
M/s NIIT Ltd.
C-125, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-1, New Delhi-110020 ........ Petitioner (s)
Vs.
Ms. Anu Kohli
524, Mandakini Enclave,
Alaknanda, New Delhi …….Respondent (s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 655 OF 2011
(Against the order dated 01.07.2010 in Appeal No. FA-09/59 of the
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi)
Ms. Anu Kohli
11501 Century Oaks #3124
Austin TX 76758-0000 U.S.A.
Through : I. S. Kohli
524, Mandakini Enclave,
Alaknanda, New Delhi ........ Petitioner (s)
Vs.
1. M/s NIIT Ltd.
C-125, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-1, New Delhi-110020
2. Mr. R. S. Pawar, Chairman of
Respondent No. 1,
C-125, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-1, New Delhi-110020
Also at
N-3, Panchsheel Enclave,
New Delhi – 110017.
3. Mr. Rohit Verma
Divisional Manager (Human Resource)
8, Balajee Estate,
Kalkaji, New Delhi – 110019
4. Col. Ajai Lal,
Regional Head NIIT,
C-1/30, SDA
Behind Aurbindo Place Market,
New Delhi- 110016 …….Respondent (s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
For M/s NIIT Ltd. : Mr. Avanish Kumar, Advocate
For Mr. Anu Kohli : Mr. I. S. Kohli, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. A. K. Sharma, Advocate
Pronounced on 3rd September, 2012
ORDER
JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. This order shall decide two cases which arise out of the same judgment by the State Commission where, too, both the cases were decided by a single judgment, one for enhancement of compensation and second for deletion of the compensation. Both these appeals have been filed by both the parties separately.
2. The complainant, Ms. Anu Kohli took admission in GNIIT course with the opposite party, M/s NIIT Ltd. on 18.8.1998. She paid a total fees of Rs.38,944/- in installments. She was admitted at Gargi College, New Delhi for doing GNIIT course and availed opportunity of Bhavishya Jyoti Scholarship Scheme. The course consisted of four semesters of classroom coaching, machine room learning and one year of professional practice in the capacity of employee/stipendee. After completion of professional practice, giving of placement was also part of the contract. According to the complainant, the faculty was not adequately trained. Number of complaints were lodged vide letters dated 2.12.1999, 1.3.2000, 18.5.2000, 20.5.2000, 24.5.2000, 25.5.2000, 18.8.2000, 22.9.2000 and 15.9.2000, which did not evoke any response. Again, opposite parties were not having proper infrastructure for teaching the course. The complainant took one semester in fast track mode but even that, it also took six months to complete the course in place of three months. Compensatory course in ‘JAVA’ was offered to the petitioner free of cost. However, said promise was not kept.
3. On 13.12.2000, the complainant was called for interview and was consulted for professional practice in the capacity of employee/stipendee with the respondents own SEB section for one year following technical test and interview vide contract letter dated 13.12.2000. After about more than 7 months, on one day, the complainant was called at 8, BalajiEstate and was forced to accept/sign a letter placed before her, terminating her provisional practice in the capacity of employee/stipendee and converting it to Project Mode contrary to the report on respondents SEED centre ( Centre/school for employee education and development) at Sanik Farms for two weeks for project based skills/learning sessions contrary to the scheme of GNIIT on 13.12.2000. On 13.8.2001, the complainant objected and forcefully rejected the above said mala fide action on the part of the respondent. After completion of two weeks, she was given a cyclostyled paper containing details of a dummy project to be completed at home, which was contrary to the terms and conditions of the contract and scheme of GNIIT.
4. Assessment made during one year period which comprised partly of professional practice in the capacity of employees/stipendee and Internal Organisational Courier and rest to do at home project mode were submitted to the PP Coordinator, Ms. Suja Ajith from time to time by registered post between 23.10.2001 & 7.12.2001. The respondents-Institute failed to provide the quality education and teaching in the class room. Even the examination system was miserably deficient, so much so that the transcripts of marks issued by the respondents for various semesters were incorrect. Third semester evaluation was re-assessed resulting change in marks. No detail of deposit of PF and ESI was given to her depriving her of facilities available under ESI or continuation or refund of PF deducted and deposited, if any. Respondent failed to refund stipendee for five months i.e. 9.8.2001 onwards. Above all, the Respondents failed to grant the certificate to the complainant, after the completion of the course.
5. Therefore, the complaint was filed with the prayer to refund Rs.38,944/- paid towards fee alongwith interest @18% p.a. and Rs. 4 lakh be paid as compensation as the complainant had suffered mental agony, harassment, loss of job as the opposite parties are liable for wasting two important years of her carrier.
6. The opposite party contested this case. It is contended that the complainant had completed 4th Semester and 8 months of her professional practice and thereafter abandoned the course of her own accord. The complainant was apprised of the completion of the rest of the professional course through many reminders but to no avail. The stance set up by the petitioner is that since complainant did not complete the course, therefore, complainant is not entitled to GNIIT certificate and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
7. The District Forum came to the conclusion that the case in favour of the complainant does not stand proved but on account of negligence, deficiency in service in the class room teaching as well as due to inefficient facility held opposite party liable to compensate the complainant by paying a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards mental agony, harassment, deficiency in service and cost of litigation.
8. The complainant filed the appeal for enhacement of the compensation and the opposite parties filed the appeal for setting aside the order passed by the District Forum. The State Commission held that the opposite party is guilty of deficiency in service. The State Commission also upheld the order of District Forum and made the following observations:-
“15. All the grounds raised by the complainant in her appeal against the impugned order have no relevance in this consumer dispute. The ld. District Forum has recorded its findings in respect of three of the four issues framed by it, on the basis of material produced before the forum and there appears no reason to us to interfere with these findings. Regarding issue of deficiency-in-service, though we feel inclined to differ with the Ld. District Forum, yet considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we refrain to upset those findings recorded by the Ld. District Forum, in the interest of justice. Hence without expressing any opinion whether OP are guilty or not for deficiency-in-service, we dismiss both the appeals holding that the compensation awarded vide the impugned order is nothing but a consolation award to assuage the hurt feelings of the complainant.”
This is a strange type of judgment where all the questions were not decided as per law.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
10. Both the parties reiterated the pleas raised in their pleadings. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioner was deficient in providing service but counsel for the respondents argued that since the complainant had abandoned the course of her own, she cannot put the blame at the door of the other party.
11. It appears that the foras below have not appreciated the documents properly. The main document produced before the fora is letter written by opposite party dated nil, relevant portion is reproduced as follows:-
“This is further to our letter on the above subject. Effective August 13th, 2001, your Professional Practice at NIIT shall be converted to a project mode during which learning support shall be provided to you by NIIT. This would be for the residual part of Professional Placement.
Throughout the duration of the project, NIIT shall continue to fulfill all academic obligations four your GNIIT certification. The details of your schedule in the project mode are given below:
· Starting August 13th, 2001, we have scheduled learning sessions for you on latest technologies at our trainingcentre at SEED, New Delhi.
· This programme shall be for duration of two weeks.
· After completion of this programme, you shall be assigned a project based on the skills acquired by you during these sessions.
· You will complete the project under the guidance of Mr. Sridhar Reddy.
· You will be evaluated for this project assignment and the marks obtained by you shall be combined with the marks earlier obtained by you during your Professional placement.
· You will not be paid any stipend during this period.
· As a special dispensation, during this period, you will be allowed to attend employment interviews.
I am sure these input sessions would help you in future employment opportunities.
Pl. report to Col.(Retd.) T.G. Mathur on August, 13th 2001 at 9.00 am at SEED, 140 B. Sainik Farms, New Delhi.
Please get back to me for any further clarifications.
Thanking you,
For NIIT Limited
Sd/-
Rohit Varma
Deputy General Manager-Human Resource, SSB.”
12. The opposite party failed to pay the stipend during this period. They did not assure that they will pay the stipend for the rest four and a half month or five months. This shows cheating on the part of the opposite party in order to save the money. They have played with the life of a student. When confronting with this document, learned counsel for the opposite party could not explain this fact. It is, thus, clear that the complainant was compelled to leave the course. We are informed that the student used to get stipend in the sum of Rs.7,000/- per month. If this much amount is denied, how she can carry on her studies. This goes to reveal that the respondent was terribly remiss in discharge of its duties. The rights and duties of the citizens are actually two sides of the same coin and you cannot demand your rights without performing your duties.
13. The judgment of State Commission reveals that the brochure of the opposite party mentions as under:-
“NIIT has a full fledged placement division which assists you in finding placement after you successfully complete a career course. The placement division is in touch with prospective employers the year round and identifies job opening and industry trends- and guides NIIT students meaningfully.”
This is not merely an offer but something more than an offer. The students get attracted by such like advertisements. There were also deficiencies as recorded by the District Forum.
14. The State Commission’s order reveals that during the last 7 years, the complainant had acquired experience and was certified as TARADATA Master by NCR, PMP by institute of Project Manager(USA) and reached the position of Sr. Project Manager with Multinational Software Company drawing a CTC of Rs.15 lakhs per annum having worked in India and U.S. now having a job offer of $11 ac p.a. with benefits. We find force in the plea that she has pursued this case to set an example that M/s NIIT Limited should not play with the life of students (young generation).
15. Even if there was fall in the IT business during those days, it was the bounden duty of the OP to take care of their students. It is clear that for money, the people can stoop down to any extent. It is well said that money is the biggest seed of strife in the world.
16. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, we dismiss the revision petition filed by the opposite party and partly allow the second appeal filed by the complainant. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.38,944/- towards fee, alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of its deposit till its realisation. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.1 lakh to the complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.35,000/-, the stipend for five months, within one month, failing which, it will carry interest @9% pa. till its realization.
..……………Sd/-……..………
(J.M. MALIK, J.)
PRESIDING MEMBER
……………Sd/-….……………
(VINAY KUMAR)
MEMBER
Naresh/Reserved
