Coaching centre asked to refund fees, pay fine over ‘deficient services’

New Delhi: A Delhi consumer court has directed IAS Gurukul, a coaching institute in Rajender Nagar, to refund Rs 62,363 to a student for "deficiency" in services and pay her Rs 10,000 as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony, along with Rs 5,000 as litigation costs.
The central Delhi District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (DCDRC) was hearing a complaint from Satyata, who alleged that after paying Rs 98,000 to the coaching centre, she discovered that the services promised in its advertisement and information brochure were "false and misleading".
In its order dated Sept 30, the commission bench, comprising its president Inder Jeet Singh and member Rashmi Bansal, observed that the coaching institute was "guilty of publishing misleading advertisements to lure the students without intention to fulfil the promises made therein" and charging them lump sum fees. The institute, it added, had "unjustly enriched itself through unfair practices and deficient services".
The complainant alleged that the mentors named in the brochure never visited or interacted with the students. Moreover, no sessions were conducted on personal attention, counselling, test series, personality development, revision classes, doubt clearing or personal guidance from previous year's toppers.
The panel noted that the coaching centre's claim that the complainant attended nine months of classes was not supported by attendance records. The centre, represented by its director Pranay Agarwal, also failed to refute the allegations of misleading advertisements. It could not provide evidence to prove that the services promised in the brochure, including mentors addressing the students, were delivered. Additionally, the institute did not place on record the details of its teaching faculty.
The commission stated that as the complainant had attended classes for only four months, the centre was required to return the fees for the remaining seven months. The student had established deficiency in services by producing reliable evidence while the centre failed to produce any document to show that it had provided sufficient services, it said, adding that the institue was liable to compensate her.