The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has directed Allen Career Institute to refund ₹33,000 collected from a student for a NEET crash course after finding that the institute failed to establish that it had delivered the promised structured coaching programme. The commission also ordered the institute to pay 6% annual interest and ₹10,000 towards compensation and litigation expenses.
Background of the Case
The complaint was filed by Achint Chaudhary, a resident of Gurugram, whose daughter, Vanshika Chaudhary, enrolled in a one-month NEET crash course offered by Allen Career Institute in February 2020. The complainant paid ₹33,000 for the programme, which was scheduled to commence on April 1, 2020.
However, the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown prevented physical classes from commencing as scheduled. According to the complainant, although the institute had assured parents that online classes would be conducted, students received only a handful of recorded lectures instead of a properly structured coaching programme.
The complainant further alleged that the recorded lectures did not provide meaningful interaction with teachers or opportunities for students to clarify their doubts. Consequently, he repeatedly requested a refund through emails and subsequently issued a legal notice after the institute failed to address his grievance.
Arguments of the Coaching Institute
Allen Career Institute disputed the allegations, maintaining that it had commenced online classes on April 4, 2020. The institute relied on its attendance records to argue that the student had participated in online sessions until June 10, 2020.
It also contended that the course fee was non-refundable and that the complainant was not entitled to a refund. However, the complainant challenged the institute's position, arguing that uploading a few recorded lectures could not be considered equivalent to delivering the promised coaching programme.
Consumer Commission's Findings
After examining the evidence and submissions of both parties, the commission observed that the burden of establishing proper delivery of the promised educational services rested upon the service provider.
Although the institute produced an attendance sheet claiming that the student had attended online sessions, it failed to provide sufficient supporting evidence demonstrating the actual nature, duration and quality of the classes.
The commission specifically noted the absence of class schedules, faculty-wise attendance records, screenshots of live sessions, recordings of classes and other documents establishing that comprehensive online coaching equivalent to the promised crash course had been delivered.
The commission also observed that the fee receipt issued by the institute did not contain any non-refundable fee condition. Therefore, the institute could not rely upon such a condition to justify retaining the entire course fee despite its failure to establish proper delivery of the promised services.
Final Order and Directions
Holding the institute responsible for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, partly allowed the consumer complaint and issued the following directions:
- Refund: The institute was directed to refund the entire course fee of ₹33,000.
- Interest: Interest at 6% per annum was awarded from September 18, 2020, until actual realisation of the amount.
- Compensation and Litigation Expenses: An additional ₹10,000 was awarded towards compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.
- Compliance Period: The institute was directed to comply with the order within 60 days of receiving its certified copy.
Legal Significance
The decision highlights the accountability of private coaching institutions and reinforces the obligation of educational service providers to deliver the services for which they collect fees.
It also establishes an important consumer-rights principle: merely claiming that online classes were conducted is insufficient without credible documentary evidence demonstrating actual delivery of the promised educational services.
The ruling further emphasises that a coaching institute cannot automatically retain students' fees by relying on a non-refundable policy when it fails to establish that the contracted services were properly provided.
The decision serves as an important reminder that students and parents can seek appropriate consumer remedies when educational institutions fail to fulfil their contractual commitments.