PUNEET SARAN vs Vinod

HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties.

BRIEF facts in these cases filed by Vinod and Ajay Chandra Shekhar are that the two complainants took admission in the Indian Institute of Medical Transcription for Medical Transcription course and both deposited Rs. 25,000 as fee. The admission was taken on the basis of the advertisement that IIMT Institute had been promoted by Global Information Technologies Institute of U.S.A. It is evident that IIMT, Indore was being run through a Franchisee of IIMT, Delhi Mr. Ravi Mehta and Puneet Saran was its Executive Director, as is evident from the document provided by Puneet Saran. After some time, the complainant Vinod Kumar learnt through T.V. that the IIMT had failed to render services in accordance with the promises made by them. This fact was brought to the notice of other students by the complainant. The complainant was expelled from the Institute. By then, four months had already lapsed. The basic training had already completed but the Institute had not started the production centre. The contract with the IIMT Delhi was terminated. When the complainant Vinod Kumar demanded the training certificate for the first time, opposite party/petitioner advised him to appear in examination which, was not scheduled as per their representation made initially. Competent and qualified teachers did not give lectures nor placement was arranged as he was assured while taking admission. Vinod Kumar filed a complaint for refund of Rs. 25,000 and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 with interest for loss of an year. The petitioner contested the matter inter alia on the ground that information given on T.V. did not relate to the opposite party Institute. The complainant failed in final examination. Consequently, certificate could not be issued. In order to provide a chance for improvement, the complainant was put on job training and stipend was also given. But he left the training. There was no deficiency in rendering service.

The District Forum accepted the version of the complainant on the basis of the evidence, which was produced before it, held Shipra Software Export and Puneet Saran jointly and severally liable and directed both of them to refund fee and awarded compensation @ Rs. 2,000 per month for a period of six months, totalling to Rs. 12,000 for the training period with interest @ 12% p.a. on the total deposit till payment with cost of Rs. 1,000. In case of failure to pay the amount, in terms of the orders of the District Forum the petitioner would be liable to pay interest @ 12% on the entire amount.

THE State Commission partly allowed the appeal by reducing the interest from 12% to 7% till the payment along with Rs. 1,000 cost within a period of two months. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision petition has been filed.

WE have heard the learned Counsel and gone through the impugned order and the material on record. It is submitted on behalf of the Puneet Saran that the affidavit and the appointment letter of the applicant on records proved that the applicant was merely and employee designated as Executive Director of Shipra Software Exports, which was a proprietary concern of Mr. Ravi Mehta, and since he was employee he was not liable. In this regard it may be mentioned that the applicant was Executive Director and virtually running the show and expressly and impliedly was a party in making misleading and fake representation about the fact that the Institute with IIMT, Delhi, was promoted by Global Information Technologies, USA. This fact is evident even from his letter of appointment itself. However, the petitioner/appellant claimed that he was not associated with IIMT in any capacity and, as such, he could not have been held liable. It may be true that petitioner/appellant was not appointed Executive Director of IIMT, Indore by IIMT, Delhi, but he was appointed by its franchisee of Shipra Software Exports owned by Mr. Ravi Mehta, Shipra Software Exports and designated as such and worked as Executive Director. He was the person who had made false representation, and gave fake indications. He was supposed to be careful while making such representation and giving such misleading indications since neither he was supposed to wrongly advice nor he was supposed to making false statements about the recognition of IIMT by the Global Information Technology, USA without verifying it nor he was supposed to assure to provide placement after training while getting Rs. 25,000 deposited as fee. There are two kinds of liabilities where a person occupies a position either as an agent or as an employee of other person. Luring a person by giving wrong information, if an agent or employee makes misrepresentation for the purpose of laying a trap for the students, if wrongly informs anything without verifying it, makes false promises, holds fake examination to befool the students by showing that either they have not passed or they were placed in lower grade like "B", then he would commit civil wrong independent of his employment and he can be held liable in his capacity of Executive Director of an Institute. This is not confined to be wrong committed by an agent. It is a wrong committed by a person who being Executive Director had been placed in a position of active confidence and which requires trust and good faith to properly guide and assist the student, without laying traps, as mentioned above. He is supposed to professional adviser. In para 19 of the judgment in the case of Jacob Mathew (Dr.) v. State of Punjab & Anr., III (2005) CPJ 9 (SC)=122 (2005) DLT 83 (SC)=VI (2005) SLT 1=III (2005) CCR 9 (SC)=(2005) 6 SCC 1, about liability of professional the Supreme Court observed as under: 19. "An of quoted passage defining negligence by professionals, generally and not necessarily confined to doctors, is to be found in the opinion of McNair J. in Bolam v. Freirn Hospital Management Committee, WLR at p. 586 in the following words: (AIR ER 121 D.F.) "Where you get a situation which involves the use of some special skill or competence, then the test as to whether there has been negligence or not is not the test of the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill. A man need not possess the highest expert skill.... It is well established law that it is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art." (Charlesworth and Percy, ibid, para 8.02)

IT does not appear in the aforesaid circumstances that he exercised due care and necessary ingredient of good faith.

IN terms of Section 111 of the INdian Evidence Act, it was for him to prove his innocence. Section 111 of the Evidence Act reads as under: 111. Proof of good faith in transactions where one party is in relation of active confidence-Where there is a question as to the good faith of a transaction between parties, one of whom stands to the other in a position of active confidence, the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the party who is in a position of active confidence. But, the question does not relate to IIMT but to the petitioner who was admittedly the Executive Director of the Institute run through Shipra Exports of Ravi Mehta. The petitioner/appellant claimed and it appears from an order of the State Commission that he was teaching English subject in the Institute. This impliedly indicated he was acting as Executive Director of the Institution, not in Shipra Software Exports. It is further evident from the order of the District Forum that though Ravi Mehta filed an affidavit supporting his evidence but it was belied by the complaint made by father of Ravi Mehta, Mr. Om Mehta to the police dated 24.9.2001 that IIMT had no connection with Global Information Technologies, U.S.A. This fact could not be disputed.

The mushroom growth of the institutes like the present one has taken place to lay trap by luring students by making false representation with an intention to quickly amass easy money. Persons like Puneet Saran have lured thousands to fall in trap of "learning and earning by assured placement". There is concurrent finding to the effect that Puneet Saran being Executive Director, was responsible for the deficiency in service.

IN FIR it was stated that by declaring the wrong results of the students, the IIMT played with the future of the students. Not only this, proper equipments were not provided nor the assistance of experts was extended by the IIMT to the appellant nor any seminar was organised. No seminar was arranged. Thus, the IIMT by playing fraud on the students has misappropriated the amount and cheated the appellant-Institution as well as the students. This First Information Report supports the case of the students that the course was not completed, as there was no lecture of the experts was arranged. Wrong results were declared after examination and the certificates were not given which were obtained after filing of the complaint. It also proves that the IIMT was not recognised or affiliated with the Global Information Technology of USA. The admissions were taken on the basis of the representation that the Institute was affiliated with the IIMT, which was allegedly promoted by and affiliated with the Global Information Technology, USA. But, in fact, that was not so. In the above circumstances, the case of the complainant gets corroboration from FIR and it stands proved that there was no expert to teach. The placement, which was promised, could not be provided.

THE student had to suffer loss of one year due to casual approach in rendering educational service by becoming a party to false representation. We do not think that person like Puneet Saran should act without due care and caution and take risk of luring students and spoiling their year in the aforesaid circumstances. In the aforesaid circumstances, it became apparent that the Fora below had shown indulgence by just awarding refund of the amount of fee and by reducing the rate of interest from 12% to 7%. We cannot show further indulgence. As such, we do not find any force in R.P. No. 3065/2003A and it is dismissed. In R.P. No. 3066/2003, the facts and points raised are similar as that of R.P. No. 3065/2003 A excepting that he was not turned out of the Institute. As such, it is also dismissed for same reasons. R.Ps. dismissed.