Delhi Consumer Forum Orders ₹62,363 Refund to Student for Misleading Brochures
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Delhi has ordered IAS Gurukul, a renowned coaching institute for civil services aspirants, to refund ₹62,363 to a dissatisfied student and compensate her with an additional ₹15,000 for mental agony and litigation costs.
The decision, delivered on September 30, 2024, came after the Commission found that IAS Gurukul had engaged in unfair trade practices by publishing misleading advertisements and brochures to attract students.
The forum observed that the institute failed to deliver on the promises it made regarding faculty quality and other crucial academic resources.
False Claims and Unfulfilled Promises
The student, who had enrolled in IAS Gurukul’s “Full IAS Preparation Program” in November 2017 for a fee of ₹98,000, alleged that the institute did not provide the services as promised.
The complainant attended classes for four months and soon realized that the key subjects lacked qualified faculty, and no personalized mentorship, test series, or other promised resources were provided.
Despite assurances of 100% syllabus coverage and personal mentorship, the student was left dissatisfied with the coaching experience.
After raising her concerns with the institute and not receiving a satisfactory response, the complainant decided to withdraw from the program in March 2018.
She served a legal notice seeking a refund of the fees paid and demanded ₹15 lakh in punitive damages for the time and effort wasted due to the institute’s alleged shortcomings.
Legal Battle and Consumer Forum’s Findings
IAS Gurukul, in response, denied any deficiencies in its services. The institute claimed that the complainant had attended classes for nine months without raising any issues and argued that her refund demand came only after she decided to discontinue her IAS preparation for personal reasons.
The coaching centre also contended that the complainant had taken demo classes before enrollment and was satisfied with the teaching during her time there.
The institute further denied the allegations of misleading advertisements, asserting that the brochure referred to by the complainant was published after her enrollment.
They highlighted that no first information report (FIR) had been registered based on the student’s criminal complaint, suggesting that her claims lacked merit.
However, the Commission, presided over by President Inder Jeet Singh and member Rashmi Bansal, rejected the institute’s defense, pointing out that IAS Gurukul had failed to provide evidence supporting its claim that the student had attended nine months of classes.
The absence of attendance records or proof of services rendered led the forum to accept the complainant’s assertion that she had attended only four months of coaching.
Misleading Advertisements and Unfair Practices
The Commission also condemned the institute’s misleading advertisements and brochures. It noted that despite claiming to guide renowned mentors and faculty, IAS Gurukul did not produce any evidence of these individuals interacting with students.
The Commission ruled that the institute had indulged in unfair trade practices by making false claims to lure students without the intention of fulfilling its promises.
Relying on the Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission’s ruling in FIIT JEE Ltd vs. Minathi Rath, the forum criticized the practice of charging full fees upfront without delivering services as advertised.
It held that the complainant was entitled to a refund for the unutilized months of the course. Retaining the entire fee, it said, would be unjust and a clear case of deficiency in service.
Final Order
The Commission ordered IAS Gurukul to refund ₹62,363 to the complainant for the seven months of unutilized services.
Additionally, the institute was directed to pay ₹15,000 as compensation for mental harassment and litigation costs.
This ruling serves as a reminder to educational institutes to uphold transparency and honor the commitments made in their advertisements and brochures, ensuring that students receive the services promised at the time of enrollment.
Parties Involved:
- Complainant: Satyata (Student)
- Opposite Party: IAS Gurukul (Coaching Institute)
- Bench: District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (President Inder Jeet Singh, Member Rashmi Bansal)