A district consumer commission in Punjab has directed a civil services coaching centre to refund Rs 55,000 in tuition fees and pay Rs 15,000 in damages to an aspirant after concluding that the institute breached its promises regarding permanent teaching faculty and arbitrary refund deductions.
In a ruling dated October 5, a bench comprising President S K Aggarwal and member Paramjeet Kaur held the institute and its representatives jointly and severally liable to return the full course fee of Rs 55,000. The bench also awarded the complainant Rs 15,000 as lump-sum compensation to cover mental agony, harassment, and litigation expenses.
The commission emphasized that preparation for competitive examinations like the UPSC requires continuity, structured guidance, and access to qualified instructors. Observing that an aspirant’s preparation time is critical, the bench noted that frequent faculty replacements, irregular lectures, and unfulfilled service commitments materially undermine a candidate’s academic prospects.
Batch Mergers And Disputed Deductions
The dispute originated after a female student enrolled in a UPSC coaching programme at the institute’s Chandigarh branch, paying an upfront fee of Rs 55,000. She later approached the commission alleging that the centre failed to deliver the permanent, qualified faculty promised at the time of admission. According to the student, instructors were substituted continuously, and her classes were repeatedly combined with other batches that included postgraduate and more advanced students.
After raising grievances over the disruptions, the candidate sought to discontinue the course and requested a refund. While the coaching centre initially agreed to return Rs 40,000 after withholding Rs 15,000 as administrative service charges, it subsequently altered its position. In a later communication, the centre proposed withholding Rs 45,000 under multiple heads—including registration fees, digital portal access, offline facility costs, and study material—leaving an offered refund of only Rs 10,000.
Unrebutted Evidence And Forum Findings
Following the dispute over the deductions, the complainant approached the consumer commission. The coaching centre failed to contest the proceedings effectively. One opposing party did not appear and was proceeded against ex parte, while the other entered an appearance but failed to submit a written reply within the statutory 45-day timeframe, leading to the forfeiture of its right to file a response.
Examining the complainant’s uncontroverted submissions—which included the institute’s prospectus, payment invoices, refund requests, emails, and WhatsApp correspondence—the bench concluded that the representations regarding experienced, permanent faculty were a decisive factor in the student’s enrollment decision.
The commission ruled that the coaching centre’s inability to maintain a stable teaching lineup despite multiple requests, along with its failure to process a reasonable refund, constituted a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
