The main legal point established is that misleading advertisements and job guarantee claims, if not fulfilled, can lead to a finding of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act.

ORDER

Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Member - Vide this common order, we are disposing of three appeals bearing Nos. 661, 662 and 663 all of 2009 filed by OP i.e. Tesol India arising out of one and the common order dated 7.10.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in complaint case No. 862 of 2009 : Sanjeev Kumar v. Tesol India, vide which two similar complaint cases bearing No. 864 of 2009 and 913 of 2008 filed by Gaurav Bakshi and Ali Asghar Gakhar were also decided.

2. Briefly the facts as taken from complaint case No. 862 of 2009 are that according to the complainant Sh. Sanjeev Kumar on being attracted by an advertisement in the newspaper which stated "OVERSEAS JOB GUARANTEED" and job would fetch "MONTHLY 1-3 LACS PLUS" and after paying the full fee of Rs. 50,000, took admission in the tesol programme with the OP As per the complainant, after completing the said course, no placement was give to him for a job. It was averred that when the complainant approached OP along with some other students, it flatly refused to help. It was told to the complainant by the OP that it had nothing to do with the polices of the Global Tesol College, Canada though at the time of admission, he was told by the OP that the OP was part of Tesol Global College, Canada. As per the complainant, OP mentioned job guarantee, fee refund and also of e-mail of successfully placed students but it failed to divulge the names of the successfully placed students although their brochure mentioned 99% job success rate. Alleging the failure of getting the job for him and non refund of his fee, as deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OP, the complainant had filed the present complaint.

3. The version of OP is that it was to give the Tesol Certificate on the completion of the Tesol Programme, which certificate was valid to get overseas job. It was stated by the OP that it never guaranteed to provide any job to the persons undergoing the training and it was only to provide employer assistance to the person who completed the Tesol Course from the Institute, for which service, nothing was being charged from the person. OP next stated that it only charged the fee for the Training's Programme i.e. English to Speakers of other Language (Tesol). As per the OP, it had issued genuine certificates duly certified by the Govt. of Canada to the complainants. As per the OP, it was the duty of the complainants to apply and follow the steps for job process. The OP had taken an objection regarding non-impleading of Vocational Institute Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh as party to the complaint case. Pleading no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The learned District Forum, in its analysis of the complaint and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, reproduced at Paras 7 and 8 the impugned order the Advertisement (C-1) and the Brochure (C-7). The learned District Forum after barely going through these two annexures was of the clearly recorded at Para 9 of the impugned order that there was an overseas job guarantee after successfully completion of the course and getting the certificate from the OP. It further observed that even for the sake of argument, if it was assumed that the OP had not guaranteed the overseas job and it offered step-by-step job search assistance to the candidates, still the OP had failed to provide any step-by-step assistance to the complainants. In the view of the learned District Forum, the OP had failed to intimate the complainants regarding the availability of jobs for which they could have applied. As per the learned District Forum, nothing had been placed on record by the OP to prove that it had intimated the complainants regarding the availability of the jobs for which they could have applied. Holding deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP,