While upholding orders passed by the fora below, the national consumer disputes redressal commission (NCDRC) directed the former director of a franchise of Aptech Computer Education (Aptech Ltd) to refund the entire fee paid by a student for failing to provide an internship after completing the course.
In an order, the bench of Subhash Chandra (presiding member) and justice Sudip Ahluwalia (member) says, "Counsel for the petitioner has been unable to show from the record as to how and in what manner the respondent or complainant was communicated that he did not fulfil the eligibility criteria on account of which certain more steps from his side were required to be complied with. Similarly, no documents could be cited on behalf of the petitioner to show that any intimation asking the respondent or complainant to appear at any interview was actually conveyed to him."
"...we find no grounds to interfere with the concurrent decisions of both the fora below. The revision petition is therefore dismissed. Litigation costs assessed at Rs10,000 are further awarded in favour of the respondent or complainant," NCDRC says.
Dhanbad, Jharkhand-based Sanjay Kumar took admission for an Aptech certified computer professional (ACCP) course at Sion Computers (India) Pvt Ltd, a franchise of Aptech Computer Education. He was told that the two-year ACCP course includes theory and practical classes and a one-year internship with a reputed multinational company. Mr Kumar claimed he paid Rs1.20 lakh to Sion Computers, headed by its director Rajiv Sahay, but was given receipts for only Rs58,156. Further, even after completing the course on 17 December 2009, he was not provided with any internship by the franchise.
After sending a legal notice, he filed a complaint before the Dhanbad district consumer disputes redressal forum. During the hearing, Mr Sahay denied all allegations and deficiency in service on his part. "Sanjay Kumar did not abide by his declaration and undertakings and he did not attend the test. Hence, under clause 'j' of the declaration, Aptech Computer Education found him not eligible for the allotment of an internship site. It was further submitted that Mr Sahay had several times informed Sanjay Kumar verbally, telephonically and through email to attend the interviews, which were conducted by reputed companies. However, Sanjay Kumar failed to participate and consequently, the internship site was not allotted to him."
Aptech Ltd submitted that the role of the franchise was to assist the complainant in getting the internship and not guaranteeing an internship. Further, as per its agreement with Sion Computers, the franchise was responsible in respect of any suit, application for interim or ad-interim order(s) or any legal proceedings or any legal notice or any complaint filed by the students, it says while praying for dismissal of the complaint against Aptech.
After hearing all parties, the district forum rejected the submission of the franchise. It directed Mr Sahay to refund the entire fee with interest at 8%, Rs20,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs5,000 cost of litigation to Mr Kumar.
Mr Sahay from Sion Computers filed an appeal before the Jharkhand state consumer disputes redressal commission. However, the state commission dismissed the appeal. It observed that the franchise did not produce any document or evidence to show that there were laches on the part of Sanjay Kumar in not attending the interviews, as alleged.
Mr Sahay from Sion Computers challenged the decision before NCDRC. He contended that, as per the fee receipts and a written statement of Aptech, Sion Computers was the company's franchise and not him in his individual capacity. He also submitted that he had already resigned from Sion Computers.
The counsel for Mr Sahay submitted that the complaint is not maintainable since it has been filed against his client in his personal capacity, and the company of which he happens to be a director, i.e., the 'franchise of Aptech computer education', has not been made a party.
NCDRC says such contention at this stage was untenable because it was never raised before the district forum at any stage. "Further, by his own case, the petitioner actually is a franchise of the main service provider Aptech and, therefore, stands in the position of being an agent to such a service provider, who was also actually impleaded as opposite party no2 in the original complaint. So the contention raised by Mr Sahay at this stage holds no water."
NCDRC then dismissed the revision petition.
(Revision Petition No17 of 2017 Date: 3 May 2023)