By Kanu Sarda, IANS,
New Delhi : A consumer court has pulled up the National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT) for unfair trade practices and asked it to refund Rs.281,540 with compensation of Rs.20,000 and Rs.5,000 as cost of litigation to a Delhi student.
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Friday said NIFT had adopted unfair trade practices by charging fees without providing any service to students enrolled with it.
The commission, headed by J.D. Kapoor, ruled: “There cannot be a worse kind of unfair trade practice on the part of such educational institutions that are forfeiting the fees for which it has not provided service.”
“Moreover, 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 for a period for which the service is yet to be provided. By charging fee in lump sum 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,” Kapoor stated.
The judge was ruling on an appeal filed by NIFT against an order passed by a district commission in the capital in favour of Delhi student Shikha Goel – who enrolled herself with the government recognised institute for a postgraduate programme in fashion management and technology under the NRI category, and deposited Rs.300,000 as fees.
However, Shikha was shocked when informed that she had got admission in NIFT Kolkata and immediately applied for withdrawal and refund of fees as she did not want to study in Kolkata.
After a series of letters being exchanged, the institute refunded a sum of Rs.23,460 of the Rs.305,000.
NIFT said in its defence that Shikha was allotted the seat in Kolkata only after her acceptance.
The judge stated: “In similar cases we have taken a view that no provider of service including coaching centres, universities 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.”
The court also rejected the plea of institutes like NIFT that they would face monetary looses if a candidate withdraws either before the course begins or during the session as there was no dearth of candidates. It directed NIFT to prepare a waiting list and offer the seat to the next available candidate.