The District Consumer Commission in Gurugram has directed Sanjeev Datta Personality School to refund half of a student’s tuition fees and pay financial compensation after holding the institute guilty of service deficiency for shifting its class location mid-session.
Financial Penalty And Compensation
A bench comprising Commission President Sanjeev Jindal and members Jyoti Siwach and Khushwinder Kaur ordered the school to return 50 per cent of the total course fee, amounting to Rs 38,645 out of Rs 77,290. The forum also awarded Rs 15,000 in compensation to the complainant for mental agony and harassment, alongside Rs 11,000 to cover litigation costs.
Commute Inconvenience And Dispute
The case originated when a parent enrolled his ward in a personality development program at the institute’s Sector-57 facility on December 24, 2018, paying the full fee upfront. The initial location was situated close to the student’s residence. However, the school later relocated its sessions to a studio on Golf Course Road in DLF Phase-1, significantly extending the daily commute.
After the institute rejected the parent’s request to provide pick-up and drop-off transport, the complainant requested a course cancellation and a full refund. When repeated demands and a formal legal notice went unaddressed, the parent approached the consumer commission for redressal.
Evidentiary Findings And Timeline
Contesting the claim, the school argued that the venue change did not occur within one month of admission as alleged. The institute presented a WhatsApp message sent on June 21, 2019, which notified students that future classes would take place at the Golf Course Road location while keeping session timings unchanged.
The commission verified that the relocation took place nearly six months after enrolment, confirming that the student had already completed roughly half of the course. On these grounds, the panel determined that a complete fee refund was unwarranted.
Commission Ruling On Service Deficiency
Despite the timeline discrepancy, the commission held that relocating the facility caused severe inconvenience to the family and constituted a clear deficiency in service. The panel noted in its July 13 order that while the institute proved the timing of the shift, it failed to submit any evidence countering the claims of operational disruption or the refusal of transportation.
Because the complainant’s assertions regarding service deficiency remained unrebutted by the defense, the bench concluded that educational institutes remain accountable for unilaterally altering key terms of service to the detriment of consumers.
