In a notable judgment delivered on September 30, 2024, the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (Central District), Delhi, ordered IAS Gurukul to refund a significant portion of the fees paid by a student, Ms. Satyata. The ruling, made by Inder Jeet Singh (President) and Rashmi Bansal (Member), addressed the coaching center's misleading advertisements and service deficiencies in Complaint Case No. CC/248/2018.
Background of the Case
In November 2017, Ms. Satyata enrolled in IAS Gurukul's "Full IAS Preparation Program" after being drawn in by their advertisements promising comprehensive coaching, experienced faculty, and various support services for IAS exam preparation. She paid ?98,000 in full for an 11-month weekend batch program.
However, within four months, she discovered several issues, including irregular class schedules, lack of experienced faculty for key subjects, and unavailability of the promised test series and guidance. Despite raising her concerns, the coaching center did not resolve them, forcing her to seek legal recourse for a refund and compensation for the disruption caused to her studies.
Legal Issues at Hand
Three major legal issues were at the heart of this case:
1. Deficiency in Services: Did IAS Gurukul's failure to deliver as advertised amount to a service deficiency under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
2. Misleading Advertisements: Were the coaching center's promotional materials false and misleading, constituting an unfair trade practice?
3. Unethical Fee Practices: Was charging an advance lump-sum fee, without offering refunds for unutilized services, a legitimate practice?
Key Court Findings
The Commission ruled in Ms. Satyata's favor, stating that IAS Gurukul failed to provide any evidence supporting its claims. The coaching center did not produce attendance records to prove Ms. Satyata attended classes for nine months, nor did it show that the advertised faculty conducted any sessions.
The court strongly criticized the practice of collecting full advance fees without a refund policy, referring to a similar precedent in the FIIT JEE Limited vs. Minathi Rath case. It emphasized that this approach left students like Ms. Satyata vulnerable, with no recourse once they discovered the services did not meet expectations.
The Decision
IAS Gurukul was ordered to refund ?62,363 to Ms. Satyata, calculated on a pro-rata basis for the seven months of unutilized services. The court also awarded her ?10,000 for mental harassment and ?25,000 for litigation costs. However, her request for punitive damages was not granted.
Ms. Satyata represented herself, while IAS Gurukul was defended by its director, Mr. Pranay Agistwal. The judgment underscored the importance of maintaining transparency in advertisements and upholding the promises made to students.
This ruling serves as a strong reminder to coaching institutes to maintain proper documentation and live up to their commitments, protecting students' rights to quality education and fair practices.
