IMPORTANT POINT
Educational Institution must take care of its students

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—This order shall decide two cases which arise out of the same judgment by the State Commission where, too, both the cases were decided by a single judgment, one for enhancement of compensation and second for deletion of the compensation. Both these appeals have been filed by both the parties separately.

2. The complainant, Ms. Anu Kohli took admission in GNIIT course with the opposite party, M/s. NIIT Ltd. on 18.8.1998. She paid a total fees of Rs.38,944/- in installments. She was admitted at Gargi College, New Delhi for doing GNIIT course and availed opportunity of Bhavishya Jyoti Scholarship Scheme. The course consisted of four semesters of classroom coaching, machine room learning and one year of professional practice in the capacity of employee/stipendee. After completion of professional practice, giving of placement was also part of the contract. According to the complainant, the faculty was not adequately trained. Number of complaints were lodged vide letters dated 2.12.1999, 1.3.2000, 18.5.2000, 20.5.2000, 24.5.2000, 25.5.2000, 18.8.2000, 22.9.2000 and 15.9.2000, which did not evoke any response. Again, opposite parties were not having proper infrastructure for teaching the course. The complainant took one semester in fast track mode but even that, it also took six months to complete the course in place of three months. Compensatory course in ‘JAVA’ was offered to the petitioner free of cost. However, said promise was not kept.

3. On 13.12.2000, the complainant was called for interview and was consulted for professional practice in the capacity of employee/stipendee with the respondents own SEB section for one year following technical test and interview vide contract letter dated 13.12.2000. After about more than 7 months, on one day, the complainant was called at 8, Balaji Estate and was forced to accept/sign a letter placed before her, terminating her provisional practice in the capacity of employee/stipendee and converting it to Project Mode contrary to the report on respondents SEED centre ( Centre/school for employee education and development) at Sanik Farms for two weeks for project based skills/learning sessions contrary to the scheme of GNIIT on 13.12.2000. On 13.8.2001, the complainant objected and forcefully rejected the above said mala fide action on the part of the respondent. After completion of two weeks, she was given a cyclostyled paper containing details of a dummy project to be completed at home, which was contrary to the terms and conditions of the contract and scheme of GNIIT.

4. Assessment made during one year period which comprised partly of professional practice in the capacity of employees/stipendee and Internal Organisational Courier and rest to do at home project mode were submitted to the PP Coordinator, Ms. Suja Ajith from time to time by registered post between 23.10.2001 and 7.12.2001. The respondents-Institute failed to provide the quality education and teaching in the class room. Even the examination system was miserably deficient, so much so that the transcripts of marks issued by the respondents for various semesters were incorrect. Third semester evaluation was re-assessed resulting change in marks. No detail of deposit of PF and ESI was given to her depriving her of facilities available under ESI or continuation or refund of PF deducted and deposited, if any. Respondent failed to refund stipendee for five months i.e. 9.8.2001 onwards. Above all, the Respondents failed to grant the certificate to the complainant, after the completion of the course.

5. Therefore, the complaint was filed with the prayer to refund Rs.38,944/- paid towards fee alongwith interest @18% p.a. and Rs. 4 lakh be paid as compensation as the complainant had suffered mental agony, harassment, loss of job as the opposite parties are liable for wasting two important years of her carrier.

6. The opposite party contested this case. It is contended that the complainant had completed 4th Se