SAKILA BEGUM vs NIIT LTD.

THIS is petitioner''s appeal against the order of the Forum allowing the case of the petitioner in part. According to the Forum, no order for compensation should be passed because no specific loss of damage was proved. The Forum, however, directed the OPs to issue two years completion certificate of G.N.I.I.T. Course in favour of the petitioner within a month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

THE petitioner enrolled herself as a student for three years of the G.N.I.I.T. Course which is a job-oriented one. THE course is divided into two parts : P.T.M. for two years and P.P. for one year. She deposited Rs. 38,300/- for the said course of three years. The petitioner completed two years course in November, 1997 and waited for the one year Professional Course but in vain. According to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was paid for this P.P. training for one year. The petitioner alleges unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. in not arranging for P.P. Course for one year nor did the O.P. take any step for her engagement in any renowned company. Nor did they oblige the petitioner by making refund of the amount.

In course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the O.P. conceded that they would issue completion certificate for two years inasmuch as the petitioner has completed the said course. According to the OPs there was no gurantee on their part to provide placement of the petitioner in a renowned company. The OP states that they have sponsored the name of the petitioner for receiving Professional Training in several companies but she has failed to satisfy those organisations. The petitioner argues the case personally. She makes a grievance that whenever her name was sponsored by the O.P. for receiving practical training and the names of the Firms were notified. She approached those organisations only to hear that she is not qualified to receive the said training. During hearing the learned Advocate for the O.P. frankly conceded that they are ready and willing to send the petitioner for professional practice and, accordingly, the Forum observed that effective steps shall be taken by the O.P. for professional practice of the petitioner. The petitioner who appears in person makes a grievance that at the present stage it is not possible for her to undergo training because she is staying far away from Calcutta. She alleges that whenever she appears before any organisation, stiff questions were asked wilfully so as to disqualify her for receiving Professional Training. She submits before us that she would be satisfied if the amount of the Course Fee is refunded to her.

ADMITTEDLY, she has completed two years Course but for some reason or other, she could not receive the practical Professional Training. Therefore, we think it would be just and reasonable if we pass order for refund of the sum of Rs. 10,000/- received by the O.P. towards fee for professional training. For the aforesaid reasons we affirm the judgment with a further direction to O.P. to make refund of Rs. 1,000/- to the petitioner, within one month from this date failing which the petitioner will be at liberty to realise it by way of execution. Complaint disposed of.