IMPORTANT POINT
It is not that every order passed by Fora below is to be challenged by a litigant even when the same is based on sound reasoning.

V. B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 has filed this revision petition Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(for short, ‘Act’) challenging order dated 15.11.2007, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh(for short, ‘State Commission’).

2. Briefly stated the facts are that Respondent No.1/Complainant had taken admission at the Institute of the Petitioner and Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2, vide agreement dated 18.07.2005. According to the said agreement, there was training of six months and after conclusion of the training, petitioner was to provide job to respondent no.1, within 9 months of the signing of the contract, failing which it was liable to refund the whole amount to her.

3. It is further stated that respondent no.1 completed six months training on 18.01.2006,starting from 18.07.2005. A certificate in this regard was issued by the petitioner. However, as per terms and conditions of the agreement, it failed to provide her job. Alleging deficiency in service, a complaint was filed by respondent no.1 praying that directions be issued to the petitioner as well as respondent no.2, to refund the entire amount which was paid by her during the training, besides Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation.

4. Petitioner and respondent no.2 contested the complaint and filed written replies taking identical pleas. The petitioner took preliminary objection stating that the complaint is not maintainable as it pertains to the breach of contract of personal service. However, petitioner has admitted that respondent no.1 had taken admission on 18.07.2005 and executed the agreement. It is asserted that, she was offered the job by Firmware Embedded Systems(P) Ltd, but she did not join there and insisted for a job outside Chandigarh. Similarly an offer was made by HCL but respondent no.1 was rejected because of her performance. It is further stated that her batch mates had already got good jobs but respondent no.1 was not sincere in getting the job and was only interested to get back her money. Thus, there was no deficiency in service and complaint should be dismissed.

5. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T, Chandigarh (for short, ‘District Forum’), vide order dated 16.5.2007 accepted the complaint and ordered as under;

“i) The OP-1 is directed to refund Rs.75,000 along with interest @ 9% from the dates of respective deposits till realization.

ii) The OP -1 is also directed to pay Rs.5,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc.

iii) The OP-1 is further directed to pay costs of litigation which are quantified at Rs.2,500/-“.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which concurred with the reasoning given by the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.

7. Now petitioner has approached this Commission by filing the present revision.

8. Notice of revision petition was issued to the respondents. Initially, Sh.Ravi Kant, Advocate for respondent no.1 appeared but later on, he absented. However, all parties have filed their respective written submissions.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner as well as counsel for respondent no.2 and gone through the record.

10. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no.1 does not fall within the ambit of term “Consumer” as is defined under Section 2(d)of the Act. Neither does the service provided by the petitioner, fall within the scope of “Service” as defined under Section 2(o)of the Act.

11. Further, it is contended that respondent no.1 even during her training, was offered the job but she declined the offer. Thus, there is no deficiency on the part of the petitioner and it was respondent no.1 who herself was not interested in job.

12. The District Forum, while allowing the complaint of respondent no.1 has held;

“The OP-1 admitted the receipt of Rs.75,000/-from the complainant for the ser