Judgment:
J.D. Kapoor, President:
1. Feeling aggrieved of the impugned order dated 6.3.2000 whereby the complaint of the appellant seeking compensation of Rupees one lac for deficiency in service in not providing a well qualified faculty for a computer course equivalent to MCA, the appellant has directed this appeal. Complaint was dismissed by the District Forum mainly on the premise that course of 2 years could not have been completed in 7 months and, therefore, there was no deficiency on the part of the appellant. For having wasted a precious period of his career he had sought compensation of Rupees one lac.
2. Appellant was a topper of Delhi University. He topped in BSc 1st, 2nd and 3rd year. Pursuant to an advertisement by the respondent GNIIT who runs computer course that candidates obtaining 60% marks and above in graduation would be granted 100% scholarship for three years course at GNIIT, the appellant applied and was declared successful and deposited admission fee of Rs. 2,800. When he took the admission he was told that there was no such course at the Nangal Raya branch and asked to join the GNIIT course which was already running in Kamla Nagar. He was offered only 50% scholarship in two years GNIIT course which is also equivalent to MCA and was promised to be accommodated in the nearby Institute subject to the condition that he will pay 9 monthly instalments of Rs. 2,450 in addition to Rs. 2,800.
3. After attending the course for 7 months he found that there was no proper faculty and professionals were not there and he was wasting his time. He left his course after 7 months and joined some other course. He is now very well placed.
4. Against this the stand of the respondent was that the GNIIT course was designed by highly professional and experienced people and a team of 50 professionals had been working full time in the division since 1993. The appellant had requested for transfer to Janakpuri branch as he was residing in the same locality though his admission was for Nangal Raya branch/Lajwanti Garden and he was still granted the admission. It was also pleaded that the appellant was not attending the classes for reasons known to him and had missed one module test for which he had been insisting to be appeared which was not possible under the rules.
5. As to the reputation and professional excellence in the training, the respondent took the plea that all its students were being selected by the placement agencies and getting salary between Rs. 2,000 to 15,000.
6. Grievance of the appellant appears to be two fold. Firstly that in spite of having been declared successful for 100% scholarship from GNIIT, respondent took Rs. 2,800 for admission but he was not provided facilities for attending such course as there was no such provision for the courses at Nangal Raya branch. Second grievance is against the incompetent faculty after attending the course for 7 months he found that it was of no value or worth to waste the remaining period and, therefore, he left the course in between and joined some other institute for the course and now he is stated to be getting very high salary.
7. It was financially assisted course and the respondent has not been able to show as to the fate of the other students as to their placement and their lofty claim that claim has been designed by the highly professional and experienced people and team of 50 professionals have been working in the division since 1993. According to them after attending the prestigious course, the people from the authorized branches of their institutes used to be picked up at salary of Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 15,000. Though the appellant was sent from one place to another for attending the course and lastly at a place where there was no proper faculty. Had the course been of any quality, there was no point of such highly promising and brilliant student leaving the course and after spending more than 20,000 rupees towards the tuition fees and starting course afresh. The deficiency in service has been defined by Section 2(1)(g) in the following terms:
âany fault, imperfection, short-coming or inadequancy 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 service.â
8. However, taking over all view of the matter and the chequered facts, we deem that lumpsum compensation of Rs. 15,000 and cost of litigation of Rs. 2,500 shall meet the ends of justice. Appeal is disposed in the aforesaid terms.
9. The FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be returned forthwith.
10. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of costs and also the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
Appeal disposed of.