IMPORTANT POINT
Time barred complaint cannot be entertained by Consumer Forum.

Anupam Dasgupta, Presiding Member—This revision petition challenges the order dated 16.04.2007 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘the State Commission’). By this order, the State Commission partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner and directed as under:

“6. Since the District Forum has already awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- the interest awarded on the amount of the fees was not awardable as interest itself is awarded by way of compensation if there is no such term of the contract.

7. In the result, we partly allow the appeal by maintaining the direction to refund the fees with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and enhance cost of proceedings to Rs. 10,000/- and set aside the interest awarded by the District Forum. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order”.

2. The respondent had filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North-West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (in short, ‘the District Forum’) alleging that she got admitted to the 2- year GNIIT Diploma Course on payment of fee of Rs. 37,400/- on 14.06.1999. Eventually, at the suggestion of the Centre Head of NIIT, she upgraded to the 3-year GNIIT Diploma Course. She alleged that the said Centre Head assured her and her father that she would be placed in some multi-national company (MNC) for training during the 1- year professional practice (PP) phase, immediately after completing the 2-year Course and she might also get a job in the same MNC. However, despite further payment of Rs. 26,700/- in order to do some extra courses to enhance her prospects and continuous follow-up (during which she and her father were made to run around from one centre of OP to another), she could not get any job. She thus alleged, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the NIIT.

3. The petitioner, which was the opposite party (OP) before the District Forum, contested the allegations and averred that after completion of the 2-year Course, the complainant was sent for PP at ATL Company. However, she was unable to clear the interview. Subsequently, she was provided PP at NIIT, Model Town in 2001 as a Faculty member. Yet, she left the job for reasons best known to her. She was called twice thereafter for assignments in different companies but refused to appear for the interviews. The OP further stated that it provided PP to its students only in such companies and organisations where the student’s progress could be monitored and assessed. Denying any deficiency in service, the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The complainant also filed a rejoinder to the written version of the OP.

4. On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum held the OP guilty of deficiency in service and directed it to refund the full fee with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit and also pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 1500/- as cost of litigation. These amounts were directed to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the OP was required to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the whole amount. It was this order of the District Forum that the OP appealed against before the State Commission, with the result noted above.

5. I have heard Mr. Avanish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/OP and Mr. Parveen Kumar Chugh, father of the respondent/complainant on her behalf.

6. It is an admitted position that the respondent/complainant did a 3- year Diploma Course with the NIIT, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, starting sometime in middle of 1996. Out of 3 years, the last 1 year was also admittedly for doing professional practice (PP), opportunities for which had to be provided by the NIIT. Consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner NIIT was, however, filed on 29.10.2002, whereas on completion of one year of PP, the cause of action arose some time in the middle