1. IT is an appeal against the order dated 24.2.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (hereinafter called the District Forum).
2. BRIEF facts stated in the complaint are that the respondent-complainant Shri Jatinder Singh Walia (hereinafter called the complainant) joined On Line Quality Medical Transcription Training (QMTT) Plan-II with the appellant-opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party) on December 22, 2000. He paid Rs. 48,000/- as fee for the course. It is alleged in the complaint that at the time of admission he was given assurance that the course would be completed within six months and that there was 100% job assurance with a minimum start of Rs. 72,000/- to Rs. 1,44,000/- annually. It was also assured that the course was a joint venture of ESL & CS providing on Line QMTT for the first time in India. The complainant was further assured to use of internet, communication centre facility and on line library, for which he would be given password for the user of the name for the on Line Career step course. However, the complainant was given password after a gap of three months i.e., on 19.3.2001 instead of on the date of joining. The course was completed in September, 2001 instead of June, 2001. During the course of training the work and conduct of the complainant remained excellent and he gave a target with 96% accuracy. It was further stated in the complaint that after the completion of the training the complainant was to be considered for regular employment in ESL. However, the opposite party gave him an offer of O.J.T. vide letter dated 11.10.2001 with the assurance that after the completion of the said course he would be directly appointed as M.T. The complainant under compulsion completed the training as O.J.T. During these three months he was not given exact remuneration. The opposite party extended the period of O.J.T. plus MTA for another two months. After the expiry of two months the complainant was asked to continue as MTA before he was appointed as M.T. The complainant, however, gave resignation. It was then alleged in the complaint that all these acts of omission and commission on the part of the opposite party amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant ultimately sought the refund of the fee submitted by him to the opposite party as well as compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of loss of salary, harassment, inconvenience and mental torture.
Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 filed their joint written reply. Preliminary objections taken therein were that the complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint and the complaint was false and frivolous. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant had joined the course for online QMTT Plan-II with certain terms and conditions. As per one of the requirements, the complainant was to pass the final test of Career Step International, USA to become eligible for direct appointment as Medical Transcriptionist. He, however, failed to pass the said test. So he was not eligible for the direct appointment as M.T. however, to help the complainant and other candidates similarly placed the Career Step India provided them an opportunity to qualify the internal test of the Company to become eligible for the post of own-job-trainee with stipend of Rs. 2,000/- per month. It was alleged in the reply that the complainant had accepted this job voluntarily. He was further promoted to the post of Medical Transcriptionist (apprentice) with a salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month. He was supposed to be promoted as Medical Transcriptionist with salary of Rs. 5,500/- per month depending upon his performance but he had resigned from the post. It was pleaded in the reply that the job assurance of the training was subject to successful completion of the course and also subject to clearance of the Career Step International Online final examination. It was further admitted in the reply that it was a joint venture of ESL and Career Step LLC, USA providing online QMTT for the first time in India. It was also stated that the password was provided to the complainant when he was ready to undertake the online QMTT of Career Step LLC, USA, which was source Company to provide password. The period of training was extended in the interest of the complainant and whole of the cost was borne by the opposite parties. It was denied if the complainant had given the performance target with 96% accurancy. It was also stated in the reply that the post of Medical Transcriptionist was given only after clearance of the test of Career Step International, USA. The opposite parties had committed to give the post of online-job-trainee to him and other candidates provided they qualified the internal test of Career Step India. In order to help the complainant he was appointed as own-job-trainee and then Medical Transcriptionist Apprentice before he could be offered the post of M.T. depending upon his performance but he himself had resigned. The other colleagues of the complainant were still working on the post of Medical Transcriptionist. According to the opposite parties, there was no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on their part.
After hearing the parties and examining their evidence on the record, the complaint was allowed by the District Forum by majority and the following direction was made :
"9. Hence we allow the complaint and direct the respondents jointly and severally to refund the fees amounting to Rs. 48,000/- and pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the loss of time and mental harassment by way of Demand Draft/Bank cheque within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost."
Hence this appeal. The relevant portion of the order of the District Forum by which the complaint has been allowed is reproduced hereunder :"7. We heard both the parties and examine their evidence on record and find that the complainant joined the course by clearing the test, Ex. C2 letters dated 12.12.2000 is a sufficient proof to deny the allegation of the respondents that the complainant was not given user name and pass word for three months as he was having no knowledge of computer. Secondly, we also agree with the complainant''s argument that by offering OJT and MT apprentice, the respondents admitted their fully not offering MT job to him.
8. Thirdly, Ex. C4 with remarks no pass is not a sufficient proof to show that the complainant failed to clear the test. No certification was issued by the source company, i.e., C.S.I., USA. Even Ex. R19 and Ex. R20, the certificate issued by carrier steps nowhere shows that these were issued through the respondents. Ex. R21 proof of shipment of letter dated 24.6.2002 is not ''Excellent Softech'' but to Vision Inforways Limited. These are reasons which compelling us to conclude in favour of the complainant."
3. WE have heard the Counsel for the opposite parties and the complainant, who is present in person and have gone through the record of the case.
The order of the District Forum by majority in our view is cryptic and is not based upon any sound reason.
4. THE complainant was selected for the course for Online Quality Medical Transcriptionist Training (QMTT) Plan-II vide letter dated 22.12.2000. THE course was to start on 26.12.2000. THE complainant was required to deposit the necessary fee by 26.12.2000. He had deposited Rs. 15,000/- on 22.12.2000, Rs. 11,000/- on 22.1.2001, Rs. 11,000/- on 28.2.2001 and Rs. 11,000/- on 26.3.2001 vide deposit receipts Ex. C8 to C11 on the record.
The main grievance of the complainant is that after the completion of the course offered he was assured of employment as Medical Transcriptionist with minimum start of Rs. 72,000/- to Rs. 1,44,000/- as annual salary. Whereas according to the opposite parties the complainant/trainee had to pass the final test of Career Step International, USA to become eligible for direct appointment as Medical Transcriptionist but the complainant had failed to pass the same course and, thus, there was no violation of any undertaking amounting to unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In support of their plea the opposite parties have relied upon the answer sheet Ex. R-6/Ex. R-7 on the record vide which the complainant was declared as "no pass". This answer sheet has also been placed on the record by the complainant himself lending support to the plea of the opposite parties that passing of the test was pre-condition for appointment as direct Medical Transcriptionist. The complainant did not controvert this claim of the opposite parties either in his affidavit or by other evidence that such was not the pre-condition for appointment on the post of Medical Transcriptionist. It is pertinent to mention here that after the completion of the training period and after the complainant having failed to pass the test for direct appointment as a Medical Transcriptionist he was offered the post/assignment of on-the-job-trainee (O.J.T.) for working in the LMTU on the basis of pre-employment test in which the complainant had voluntarily appeared. This offer was given to the complainant vide letter Ex. C-7 on the record. The complainant was to get a stipend of Rs. 2,000/- per month with the condition that if he failed to accept, it would be taken that he was not interested in joining ESL as an employee on regular basis after completion of Online QMTT Course and chances to get the job automatically in ESL without following the selection procedure, shall cease. It was further mentioned therein that minimum performance level of 350-400 lines per day with minimum 90% accuracy would be required for regular appointment as an M.T. in ESL. The complainant had accepted this offer vide acceptance letter Ex. R-9 and he gave his joining report on 15.10.2001 as O.J.T. vide joining report Ex. R-10. This action of the complainant goes to show that from the date of complainant accepted the offer of the opposite parties vide letter Ex. R-9 and after giving his joining report on 15.10.2001 he became the employee of the opposite parties. The complainant continued working on this post. On 12.1.2002, the opposite parties issued letter Ex. R-11 offering the complainant and others the post of M.T. apprentice w.e.f. 1.2.2002 at a consolidated salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month. The complainant and others who were offered this post were required to maintain performance level of 350 LPD at minimum 95% accuracy. The complainant accepted this offer of the opposite parties vide letter Ex. R-12 and joined as M.T. apprentice on the terms and conditions vide letter Ex. R-13 on 1.2.2002. The complainant continued working on this post till he resigned as per resignation letter dated 3.4.2002 Ex. R-14. His resignation was accepted vide letter dated 8.4.2002 and final dues were paid to him and he accepted the same as full and final settlement of his dues for the post of M.T. apprentice in Excellent Softech Ltd. vide Ex. R-16. It, thus, becomes clear that the complainant having failed in the final test for his direct appointment as M.T. he was taken against the post of On-job-Trainee and then he was given the chance to work as M.T. apprentice on which post he had voluntarily worked after accepting the terms and conditions of the opposite parties. Decidedly then the complainant was the employee of the opposite parties and was not their consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 particularly after he had accepted to work as an employee of the opposite parties on different posts. District Forum by a minority order, according to us, has rightly held that the complainant was not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 of the opposite parties on the day of filing the complaint nor the dispute was a consumer dispute. If just for arguments sake it is taken that the complainant was a consumer and the opposite parties had undertaken to impart the training on consideration with the offer of job of M.T. subject to his passing the test the complainant had not passed the required test. Refusal to appoint him on the post of M.T. on payment of annual salary of Rs. 72,000/- to Rs. 1,44,000/- could not be held to be deficiency in service or even unfair trade practice. The other ancillary grievance of the complainant was that he was assured of a password immediately on joining the course but the same was given to him after three months i.e., on 19.3.2001. This claim of the complainant was controverted by the opposite parties on the ground that as the complainant was a fresher to the use of computer the password was given to him when he had learnt to use the computer and Online facility. It is established on the record that the complainant had never raised any objection in the matter of delay in giving him the password. If for this reason the course was delayed for three months without the complainant having been asked to pay any further amount as fee, he could not claim any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties particularly so when till the completion of the course (in which the complainant had failed the complainant had never raised any objection neither during the course nor thereafter nor even after his having worked on different posts with the opposite parties. When after the completion of the course the complainant had failed) to pass the test for the post of M.T. with minimum start of Rs. 72,000/- to Rs. 1,44,000/- as annual salary, he was stopped from claiming any deficiency in the matter of training or offer of an appointment as M.T. particularly so when the complainant had voluntarily accepted to work on the on-job-trainee post and as a M.T. (apprentice) for certain intervals and had thereafter resigned voluntarily. The opposite parties after the completion of the training as mentioned above had held pre-employment test in which the complainant had participated and on the basis of the same he was offered the post of OJT, which he had joined voluntarily. After he resigned his accounts were cleared and he had accepted certain amounts as full and final settlement of his salary. After all this was done he was not competent to ask for the refund of the fee he had paid for the course or for compensation for not having been offered the post of Medical Transcriptionist.
After the completion of the course the complainant had failed to pass the required test for the post of M.T.; he had voluntarily accepted to work on the on-job-trainee post and as M.T. (apprentice) for certain intervals and thereafter he had resigned voluntarily. After his resignation, his accounts were cleared and he had accepted certain amounts as full and final settlement of his salary. In these circumstances, it was not fair on the part of the complainant to ask for the refund of fee which he had paid for the course and for compensation for not having been offered the post of Medical Transcriptionist. In these circumstances, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 24.2.2003 passed by the majority and restore the minority order dated 24.2.2003 passed by the President of the District Forum. Appeal allowed. Appeal allowed.
