Delhi

StateCommission

A/07/516

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY AND ANR - Complainant(s)

Versus

MS. RUBY GOEL. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Nov 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision: 06.11.2017

1. First Appeal No. 516/2007

(Arising out of the order dated 30.11.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 709/2006 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal ForumII UdyogSadan, New Delhi-110016)

In the matter of:

1. National Insurance of Fashion Technology

(Ministry of Textile, Govt. of India)
NIFT Campus, HauzKhas, Near Gulmohar Park

New Delhi-110016

 

2. Sh. D. K. Rangra

Registrar (Admn.)

National Insurance of Fashion Technology

(Ministry of Textile, Govt. of India)
NIFT Campus, HauzKhas, Near Gulmohar Park

New Delhi-110016                                                .........Appellants

 

Versus

 

Ms. Ruby Goel

D/o Sh. PradeenGoel

R/o A-18/61, Punjabi Bagh

New Delhi                                                                ..........Respondent

2. First Appeal No. 517/2007

(Arising out of the order dated 30.11.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 710/2006 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II UdyogSadan, New Delhi-110016)

In the matter of:

3. National Insurance of Fashion Technology

(Ministry of Textile, Govt. of India)
NIFT Campus, HauzKhas, Near Gulmohar Park

New Delhi-110016

 

4. Sh. D. K. Rangra

Registrar (Admn.)

National Insurance of Fashion Technology

(Ministry of Textile, Govt. of India)
NIFT Campus, HauzKhas, Near Gulmohar Park

New Delhi-110016                                                .........Appellants

 

Versus

 

 

Ms. ShikhaGoel

D/o Sh. Praveen Goel

R/o A-18/61, Punjabi Bagh

New Delhi                                                                ..........Respondent

                                                                  

CORAM

N P KAUSHIK                         -                  Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                   Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                  Yes

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

JUDGEMENT

1.         This order shall dispose of the Appeal Nos. 516 and 517 of 2007. These appeals arise out of the complaint case nos. 709 of 2006 and 710 of 2006 of the District Forum II New Delhi. In both the aforesaid complaints, the Ld. District Forum directed the National Institute of Fashion Technology to refund to the complainants a sum of Rs. 2,81,540/- alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation charges of Rs. 5000/-. Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned here that an appeal filed against these orders was dismissed by the State Commission vide orders dated 12.09.2007. A revision petition filed in the Hon’ble National Commission was allowed vide orders dated 13.03.2012. Hon’ble National Commission observed that the appeal was dismissed by the State Commission by making general observations.  Matter was thus remanded back to the State Commission. Parties hereinafter shall be referred to by their status in the original complaint as it was.
2.         In brief, the complainant applied for admission in PG Programme in Fashion Management in OP’s institute in the year 2006. Complainant applied against NRI quota. An application was submitted in response to the advertisement floated by the OP in a few daily newspapers. OP stated in the advertisement: “few seats are available in the NRI sports category.” Vide letter dated 14.06.2006 OP called the complainant for attending the counseling session advising her of probable course center. Complainant last appeared on 30.06.2006. On that very day the OP received fees to the tune of 6500$ (Rs. 3,05,000/- in Indian rupees) from the complainant. The fee receipt bore the endorsement which is reproduced below:
3.  
3.         Grievance of the complainant is that she was shocked to see the receipt which indicated that she was allotted Kolkatta as a study center. Aggrieved by the conduct of the OP, she made an application on 03.07.2006. (01.07.2006 and 02.07.2006 being holidays.) In her application the complainant through her father stated that she had applied for New Delhi but was admitted to Kolkatta center. Being not interested in Kolkatta Centre, she asked for withdrawal from the admission and asked for refund of the money of 6500$. Contents of the letter dated 03.07.2006 are reproduced below:

“Dear Sir,

This is regarding my daughter Ruby Goel, who applied under NRI concept category. My daughter applied for the course of fashion management under NRI sponsorship category. We applied for New Delhi, but my daughter is admitted in Kolkatta as we are not interested in Kolkatta, we want to withdraw from the admission and we want our refund of $ 6500 back we were not told that admission is unavailable in New Delhi. You are requested to arrange admission in New Delhi, otherwise, we want to cancel our admission and we want our refund of $ 6500 back.”

 

4.         Defence raised by the OP was that the complainant paid aforesaid amount of fee after convincing herself that she was allotted a seat at Kolkatta. Decision to withdraw from the course was a voluntaryact of the complainant. OP further submitted that the refund of the amount was made to her as per instructions given in the prospectus.
5.         Ld. District Forum relied upon the receipt of the fee (reproduced above) Ld. District Forum observed that the OP charged a substantial amount of feeon the misrepresentation to the complainant that she would be allotted a seat in Delhi center.
6.         I have heard the arguments addressed by the counsel for the OP/appellant Ms. A Shivani and the counsel for the complainant/respondent Sh. K Bhardwaj, at length.
7.         Ld. Counsel for the OP heavily relied upon the letter dated 14.06.2006 submitting that the OP had made it clear to the complainant that the counseling involved allotment of a study center in and out of Delhi.
8.         Sole controversy to be adjudicated upon is whether the complainant was misled by any representation made by the OP to the effect that admission would be given in Delhi center alone. Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has argued that the proposition of the allotment of the study center in Kolkatta never surfaced in the counseling session in question. Complainants were shocked to see the receipt of the fee after having paid the fee amount of 6500$. On the very first available opportunity complainant made a protest and asked the OP to refund her fee. Counseling session took place on 30.06.2006 and 1^st and 2^nd July, 2006 were not the working days. She,therefore,wrote the letter dated 03.07.2006 asking for refund of the fee. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the OP has relied upon the photocopy of the attendance sheet showing the allotment of Kolkatta center to the complainants Ms. Ruby Goel and Ms. ShikhaGoel whose namesappeared at serial nos. 27 & 31 of the list respectively. List does not bear the signatures of any authority. The best evidence was in the possession of the OP. Minutes of the counseling session could have clinchesthe issue to show if the complainant had opted for Kolkattaor New Delhi. In the event of non-production of the best evidence, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the OP. Complainant all along remained under a bonafide impression that her name was being considered for New Delhi center only. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the OP submitted that the list referred to above was never challenged by the complainant in the proceedings so far. This Commission has based its findings on the proposition that the best evidence relating to the exercise of option to the study center was available only with the OP. Complainant’s contention is that she was shocked to see the receipt of the fee to which she immediately protested. There was no occasion to challenge the list relied upon by the OP.
9.         Coming to the proposition of law Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the case of AnurudhTamrakar v. Global Engineering College Jabalpur &Ors.,III (2016) CPJ 230 (NC) to show that the student was not a ‘consumer’. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has relied upon the case of Buddhist Mission Dental College & Hospital v. BhupeshKhurana&Ors.decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1135 of 2001 on 13.02.2009. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below:

          “The Commission also held that this Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra) held as under: [para 118 at page 583]:-

"...In the case of the University or an educational institution, the nature of the activity is, ex hypothesi, education which is a service to the community. Ergo, the University is an industry..."

The Commission further held as under:

"Imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of `service' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational institutions. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise. The complainants had hired the services of the respondent for consideration so they are consumers as defined in the Consumer Protection Act."

 

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of ‘service’ as defined in Consumer Protection Act. Clearly the plea raised by the Ld. Counsel for the OP is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Be that as it may, the case in hand is clearly different from the cases relied upon by the counsels for the parties. In the cases relied upon, the controversy revolved around the proposition of refund of the amount of fee during the continuation of the academic session. In the case in hand, the allegation against the OP is that it indulged in ‘unfair trade practice’ by imposing upon her an option of Kolkatta as study center for which she had never exercised her option.
11. In view of the reasonsgiven above, I am of the considered opinion that the present appeals are devoid of merits. The same are hence dismissed.
12. Complainants have been fighting this litigation since 2006.After a span of eleven years, the amount awarded to them has lost much its value. In the interest of justice, OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,81,540/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 8% p.a. w.e.f. 03.07.2006 till the date of its realization. No interference in the amount of compensation and litigation charges or the interest thereon.
13. Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be sent to records.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.