ORDER (Per: Mr. D.K. Tyagi, Member): This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.02.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar, in consumer complaint No. 178 of 2008, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 35,000/-within one month from the date of the order. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant–Sh. Vineet Thakur took admission in The Institute of Computer Accountants, Haridwar–opposite party No. 1. The institute offered various courses to the students to enhance their carrier opportunities by charging a huge amount of fees and to get them attracted to the course. The institute also offered all attractive documents such as job guarantee and money back guarantee. Miss Mehjabin, so called Centre Manager of the institute-opposite party No.1, and the Director/incharge of the institute are absolutely responsible for any short of damages caused to the students collectively and severally. According to the complainant, to better his carrier he contacted to the opposite party No. 1-Miss Mehjabin for admission in the institute. The complainant choose the training program, which was a period of twelve months. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 29,969/- towards fees and other expenditure, but the institute has not imparted the training, as promised and published in the brochure. The complainant has been complaining to the institute about slow pace of training programme and the institute gave him a false assurance about the joining of faculty members, but they never fulfilled their assurance and meantime one year’s time is lapsed. The complainant alleged that the institute threatened him, if he takes any legal step, then they will involve him in a false case. Thereafter the institute wrote a letter dated 25.03.2008 to the complainant’s father to meet the institute. The complainant’s father met with the authority of the institute and the institute informed him that the registration of the complainant has been cancelled due to huge absenteeism and non-attendance in the examination. The institute has not given any details of absenteeism of complainant and also not mentioned the date of absence in examination. It appears that the institute has just planned a strategy to deceive the complainant and cheat him by charging a huge amount of fees without imparting proper training as per brochure. The institute has not given any details of absenteeism of complainant and also not mentioned the date of absence in examination. It appears that the institute has just planned a strategy to deceive the complainant and cheat him by charging a huge amount of fees without imparting proper training as per brochure. This act of institute is equal to criminal offence and also negligence on their part and due to their malpractice the complainant suffered great mental, physical and monetary loss and the institute is liable for the same. The complainant sent notice to the institute through his counsel and after a long time the institute sent a reply based on wrong facts, which are not tenable. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the institute, the complainant has filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar. 3. The opposite parties filed written statement before the District Forum, Haridwar and pleaded that Sh. Arvind Kumar Gupta is a Centre Manager of The Institute of Computer Accountants, Haridwar. Miss Mehjabin – opposite party No. 1 looked after the work of Centre Manager in absence of Sh. Arvind Kumar Gupta. The opposite party No. 2- Sh. Gaurav Dixit is the Regional Development Manager of The Institute of Computer Accountants, Kolkatta. The complainant has wrongly stated in his consumer complaint that the opposite parties offered an attractive documents such as job guarantee and money back guarantee. The opposite parties are not responsible for the acts of the complainant. If the training programme is not completed within twelve months, then the institute provide an additional time for completion of the course. The complainant deposited prescribed fees of Rs. 29,969/- to the institute in installments for which receipts were provided to the complainant. The institute is fully aware towards its duties regarding completion of training programme. The institute has 300 centers in India, who provide education to the students for last nine years. Out of them 80% students got services after completion of course. It is wrong to say that the pace of training was slow. If the student is not serious to get education, then the institute is nothing to do. The complainant joined the course of Industrial Accountant, which was divided into ten parts and the same was to be completed by the students within twelve months. It is wrong to say that the pace of training was slow. If the student is not serious to get education, then the institute is nothing to do. The complainant joined the course of Industrial Accountant, which was divided into ten parts and the same was to be completed by the students within twelve months. The complainant has completed four parts of the said course only and did not take part in further examinations and became absent, for which respondent No. 1 sent a letter of warning dated 30.05.2007 to the complainant. The institute has also informed the complainant’s guardian in this regard. The institute has also sent letters dated 30.05.2007 and 25.03.2008 to the complainant and his guardian. The complainant himself remains absent from the institute and due to carelessness, he did not complete the said course. He also remained absent during examinations. It is wrong to say that the institute charged a huge amount as fees. After giving warning to the complainant and his guardian, neither the complainant and his guardian came in the institute nor the complainant completed the course. The institute has also replied the notice sent by the complainant and also informed that if the complainant wants to complete the said course, then he is free to do the same, for which no additional fee will be charged. The complainant belongs to affluent business family, therefore, he did not take interest in completing the course. The job guarantee or money back guarantee is given only those students, who are degree-holder from recognized university. The complainant does not hold this qualification. Therefore, he is not entitled to get the facility of above guarantee. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide its order dated 10.02.2010 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party No. 2 has filed this appeal before this Commission. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. The complainant has mentioned in the consumer complaint that to better his carrier he contacted to the opposite party No. 1 for training programme, which was a period of twelve months and paid Rs. 29,969/- as fees in seven installments to the institute. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. The complainant has mentioned in the consumer complaint that to better his carrier he contacted to the opposite party No. 1 for training programme, which was a period of twelve months and paid Rs. 29,969/- as fees in seven installments to the institute. The complainant had complained to the opposite parties about the slow pace of training programme, but only a false assurance was given to the complainant and the institute assured him that the faculty members are likely to join and the back log will be completed, but this assurance was never fulfilled by the opposite parties. The complainant has also mentioned in the consumer complaint that when he insisted upon the opposite party No. 2 to fulfill the condition of completion of complete curriculum, which is divided in ten modules, but the opposite party No.1 threatened him that if he takes any legal recourse, then they will get him incriminated in false case. The registration of the complainant was cancelled by the opposite party No. 1 showing the reasons in letter dated 25.03.2008, as huge absenteeism and non-attendance in the examinations. It is also mentioned that the opposite parties have advertised and published in the brochure that they provide 100% job guarantee and 100% money back guarantee, which has proved false. This act of the opposite parties is tantamount to Civil and Criminal offence of cheating, fraud and unfair trade practice and also deficiency and negligence on their part. The complainant had filed affidavit before the District Forum, which is at paper Nos. 27 to 32. In this affidavit the complainant has stated in para No. 25 that the entire course was divided in ten modules and only few topics of the modules were taught. The rest of the course could not be taken up due to the reason that the existing faculty was not qualified to teach and for some other modules there was no faculty at all. Despite his several complaints about the appointment of faculty, no faculty was made available and the existing faculty was not up to date to teach the course. The complainant has also mentioned in his affidavit that he had been regularly attending the institute without fail and after wasting time he had to come back because of non-availability of teaching staff. 7. The complainant has also mentioned in his affidavit that he had been regularly attending the institute without fail and after wasting time he had to come back because of non-availability of teaching staff. 7. Contrary to it Sh. Arvind Kumar Gupta, Centre Manager of the Institute, branch Haridwar filed his affidavit on behalf of the appellant (Paper Nos. 40 to 50) in evidence before the District Forum and stated in para No. 15 that the complainant was admitted in the institute in Industrial Accountant course, which was divided into ten parts. The complainant participated only in four parts of the said course. He was declared pass except in first part. The complainant, thereafter, became absent and did not come to complete the said course. He had never came again and appeared in the examinations and remained absent from the institute. A warning in this regard was also sent to the complainant through letter dated 30.05.2007. The appellant has filed three attendance sheets of module VI, which are at paper Nos. 61 to 63. The first attendance sheet is of 26.11.2007, whereas two other sheets of module VI are undated. All these attendance sheets show that the complainant remained absent during the course of module VI. The appellant has also filed Rule Book of the institute, which is at paper No. 57. There is a provision of refund of admission fee on page No. 21 of the said Rule Book. Rule No. 16.1 indicates that the admission fee is not refundable under any circumstances, whereas the Rule No. 16.2 indicates that the students undergoing the “Job Guarantee Courses” will be provided with guaranteed job. If the authority fails to provide him/her with the job, then the course fee will be refunded to the students from the centre where he/she has completed course on production of certificate from H.O. Sh. Arvind Kumar Gupta has also stated in para No. 21 of his affidavit that every student was apprised about the rules of the institute before admission. The academic qualification of the complainant does not come within the job guarantee and money back guarantee, because this guarantee is given to only those students who are graduate from any recognized university. There is no dispute with regard that the complainant had taken admission in the opposite parties institute. There is also no dispute that the complainant paid a sum of Rs. There is no dispute with regard that the complainant had taken admission in the opposite parties institute. There is also no dispute that the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 29,969/- as fees in seven installments to the institute. There is also no dispute according to the complainant that he joined the course of Industrial Accountant and that course was divided into ten modules and only few topics of modules were taught and rest of the course could not be taken up due to the existing faculty, which was either not qualified to teach or due to non-availability of faculty. The admission of the complainant on this point clearly shows that the complainant took admission in the institute, attended the classes and also appeared in the four modules out of total ten modules and also cleared some modules. The complainant remained absent after some of his examinations and the result of four modules. According to the appellant, the complainant-respondent never came back to the institute and despite warning to the complainant or his guardian, he never attended the classes. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant cited a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 270 of 2006; Brilliant Classes vs. Sh. Ashbel Sam decided on 29.01.2010. In the said case, the petitioner/institution is running coaching courses to prepare candidates to face entrance examinations for admission to engineering colleges and the respondent/complainant had opted undertaking the coaching course and paid a sum of Rs. 21,000/- for the purpose. When he joined the course, he was under the impression that lessons will be imparted on regular basis but to his dismay he found that coaching was provided intermittently with a gap of 4-5 days. He was not satisfied and thereafter withdrew from the course and requested for the refund of the fee. The Hon’ble National Commission has held that once the candidate has entered into an agreement to abide by the rules and regulations and has voluntarily deposited the course fee, he cannot at his sweet will withdraw from the course and then demand the refund of the fee on the plea of the institute holding irregular classes or rendering sub-standards lessons. The complainant was a willing party to the agreement, therefore, the course fee will not be refunded, even if he withdrew in the mid-stream. The complainant was a willing party to the agreement, therefore, the course fee will not be refunded, even if he withdrew in the mid-stream. In this view of the matter, no cause of action will arise for the petitioner/opposite party to refund the amount. Similarly in the case of Apeejay Institute of Management and Information Technology vs. Prashant Ashok; 2009(2)CLT, the Hon’ble National Commission has expressed its view that in case despite issuance of three communication the respondent did not come to attend classes and after a few months letter written by respondent about discontinuation of studies due to illness of his mother, undertaking signed by guardian to forego the fees deposited, not entitled to refund of fees. 9. From the perusal of the record and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and also citations placed before us by the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that the complainant-respondent remained absent from the institute and did not take part in further study of the said course. The complainant was also not graduate at the time of seeking admission in the institute, therefore, he is not entitle for job guarantee or money back guarantee and also not entitle for refund of any fees. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.02.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is set aside and the consumer complaint No. 178 of 2008 is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.