NEW DELHI: The National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT) has been rapped by Delhi Consumer Commission for refusing to refund around Rs 3 lakh in fees to a girl, who was denied admission at its Delhi centre.
The Commission's President Justice J D Kapoor took to task the country's premier fashion institute for forfeiting the fees of Shikha Goel, who wanted to withdraw from the course after she was allotted a seat at its Kolkata centre while she applied for Delhi.
"It is beyond our comprehension that such an institute shall indulge in such an unfair and unscrupulous practice that it will usurp the heavy fees of Rs three lakh without providing any coaching or service," Justice Kapoor said.
Slamming the State-run institute, the Commission dismissed NIFT's appeal against a Consumer Forum's order and said that any clause which stated that fees once paid was non-refundable was "highly unconscionable and unfair".
"There cannot be any worse kind of unfair trade practice on the part of such educational institutions than forfeiting the fees for the service, which it has not provided," the Commission said in a recent order.
NIFT incurred the Commission's wrath after it challenged the Forum's order directing it in June to refund over Rs 2.8 lakh to Goel along with Rs 25,000 in compensation as cost of litigation.
The institute had raised the contention that Goel, a resident of Punjabi Bagh here, had taken admission in its Post Graduate programme in Fashion Management and Technology knowing fully well that she would be allotted a seat in Kolkata.
Referring to various clauses in Goel's admission form, NIFT also claimed that it was authorised under those terms to forfeit the fee if she opted out of the course midway.
Goel, on the other hand, strongly confronted NIFT's contentions, saying she was all the time kept under the impression that she would be given a seat here and was rather 'shocked' to learn that she was allotted a seat at Kolkata.
Finding truth in Goel's version, the Commission found NIFT culpable for its unjustified denial to refund the fees and also for incorporating an 'unfair' binding clause in the admission form.
"By charging fees in lump sum in advance, such institutes not only exploit the student community but also bind the students not to leave them even if the quality of education or training may be sub-standard..." it said.
