State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
. National Institute Of Fashion ... vs D.K. Rangra on 12 September, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 12-09-2007 Appeal No.FA-2007/516 (Arising from the order dated 14-06-2007 passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, Behind Qutab Hotel, NewH Delhi in Complaint Case No.709/2006) 1. National Institute of Fashion Technology, Appellant No.1 (Ministry of Textiles, Govt. of India), Through NIFT Campus, Hauz Khas, Mr. Philemon Nongbri, Near Gulmohar Park, Advocate. New Delhi-110016. 2. Sh. D.K. Rangra, Appellant No.2 Registrar (Admn), National Institute of Fashion Technology, (Minsitry of Textile, Govt. of India, NIFT Campus, Hauz Khas, Near Gulmohar Park, New Delhi-110016. Versus Ms. Ruby Goel, Respondent D/o Sh. Pradeep Goel, R/o A-2/271, PaschimVihar, New Delhi-110063. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms. Rumnita Mittal - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) The appellant is Government of India Institute and conducts courses of P.G. Programme in Fashion Management and Technology. It is beyond our comprehension that such an Institute shall indulge in such unfair and unscrupulous practice that it will usurp the heavy fees of Rs. 3 lacs without providing any coaching or service. Respondent took admission under NRI category and paid a sum of Rs. 3,05,000/- for her admission on 30-06-2006. It was alleged by the respondent that before accepting the fees she was never informed that she would get admission in the appellant-Institute located at Kolkatta. She was shocked to receive communication that she had been allotted a seat at Kolkatta. Her father immediately applied for withdrawal and refund of the fees vide letter dated 03-07-2006. After a lot of correspondence the appellant refunded a sum of Rs. 23,460/- only out of Rs. 3,05,000/- merely in terms of certain conditions in the admission prospectus. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed the instant complaint before the District Forum seeking refund of the balance amount and compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by her.
2. Vide impugned order dated 14-06-2007 the District Forum allowed the complaint with the direction to the appellant to refund the balance amount of Rs. 2,81,540/- and also pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. Through this appeal, the impugned order has been assailed and challenged mainly on the ground that it was after convincing herself that she accepted the seat at Kolkatta and the decision to withdraw from the course was voluntary decision of the respondent and the amount of Rs.
23,460/- was refunded in terms of the conditions mentioned in the prospectus.
4. In identical cases we have taken a view that no provider of service including coaching centres, University etc. can be allowed to retain the tuition fee charged by it in case the tuition is not provided. They are entitled to deduct expenses incurred by them in the process of admission but they cannot forfeit the amount received by them towards service which they have not provided or the consumer has not availed. We have also taken a view that even if there is a term in the admission prospectus that fees one paid shall not be refunded such a term is highly unconscionable, unfair and therefore cannot be actionable and cannot be enforced. Any such rule is unconscionable and therefore void ab initio as no person can be allowed to usurp the consideration or the amount received by it without providing any service for which the consideration was accepted or without the consumer having availed the service for which the consideration was paid.
5. We have also repelled the plea of such institutes that they will face pecuniary loss if a candidate withdraws either before the commencement of the course or during the session as there is no dearth of candidates for getting admission. All the institutes of repute are even otherwise supposed to prepare waitlist and they do so as in case of vacation of a seat they do offer the seat to some other person and therefore such a plea is unacceptable.
There cannot be worst kind of unfair trade practice on the part of such educational institutions than forfeiting the fees for which it has not provided service. Again, the practice of charging the fees for two or three years in advance in lump sum is highly unfair. No service provider can charge a fee/consideration for a period for which the service is yet to be provided. By charging fee in lumpsum in advance such Institutes not only exploit the student community but also bind the students not to leave the Institute even if quality of education or training there may be sub-standard or not to the satisfaction of the candidate. They earn interest on collection of fees in advance for two years or three years course. In this case refund was asked before the commencement of the session.
6. Foregoing reasons persuade us to dismiss the appeal being wholly devoid of merit.
7. Impugned order shall be complied with, within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
8. Appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
9. F.D.R./Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
10. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
11. Copy of this order be also sent the Presidents of all the District Fora.
12. Announced on the 12th September, 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj