Compensate student for fraud

UGC's website revealed that certain universities run centres on franchise basis, which is not permissible. Private universities are not entitled to grant affiliation to colleges

Kanti Kumar Bhattacharya came across an advertisement for B. Tech and Diploma Course in Engineering conducted by the School of Engineering and Technology at Salt Lake City, Kolkata. The advertisement also mentioned that the institute was approved by Rajasthan's Singhania University.

Believing in the representations made, Kanti wanted to enrol his son Abhighyan for the B. Tech (Civil engineering) course for the academic year 2011-12. He sought the assistance of D.K. Ghosh, an agent of A to Z Consultants, who charged him Rs 75,000 for securing a seat under the management quota. The institute charged Rs 50,000 as university admission fees and Rs 52,500 towards tuition fees.Abhighyan found that no regular classes were being held. His internet research revealed that the institute was not recognised by Rajashtan's Singhania University, but by Meghalaya's CMG University. The University Grants Commission website revealed that certain universities run centres on franchise basis, which is not permissible, and private universities are not entitled to grant affiliation to institutions and colleges. They are also not permitted to establish campus centres in other states.

Realising they had been duped, Bhattacharya father and son filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum.The complaint was contested on the ground of maintainability as well as on merits. The Forum did not find any substance in the defence and ordered the institute as well as the agent liable to refund the fees collected. It also awarded Bhattacharya Rs 1 lakh as compensation for harassment and damage to his career, and Rs 10,000 as litigation expenses. Also, it imposed punitive damages of Rs 50,000 payable to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

A period of 30 days was given for compliance of the order, after which an amount of Rs 200 per day would be payable to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The Forum warned that if the order was disobeyed, it would adopt penal action of permanently closing down the fake institute and sealing it.The institute, as well as the agent, appealed to the West Bengal State Commission reiterating its stand that a complaint against and an educational institution would not be maintainable as education is not a commodity. The State Commission accepted the institute's argument and set aside the order.Bhattacharya then approached the National Commission thorough a revision petition.

The Commission observed that the brochure and advertisement given by the institute, claiming to be recognised for imparting technical and engineering education, was a hoax used to allure students. It concluded that the institute could not be termed an educational institution since it was fake and did not have any affiliation for running a centre in Kolkata. So, it held the complaint to be maintainable.The National Commission castigated the institute for ruining students’ career, and held it was necessary to deal with such cheats with a heavy hand. Accordingly, by its order of March 18, 2020, delivered by C. Viswanath, the National Commission set aside the order of the West Bengal State Commission and restored the order of the District Forum in Bhattacharya's favour.

The writer is a consumer activist