Delhi District Commission Holds Coaching Centre Liable For Retaining Advance Fee And Not Refunding Fee for Unutilized Services
The Delhi district commission has held Extra Marks company liable for retaining the advance fee of entire course and not refunding the same for unutilised portion of services. The bench presided by President Inder Jeet Singh and Member Rashmi Bansal condemned the practice of coaching institutes collecting lump sum fees for services which are yet to be rendered by...
The Delhi district commission has held Extra Marks company liable for retaining the advance fee of entire course and not refunding the same for unutilised portion of services. The bench presided by President Inder Jeet Singh and Member Rashmi Bansal condemned the practice of coaching institutes collecting lump sum fees for services which are yet to be rendered by them.
Brief background:
The complainant got enrolled in an online learning programme of Extra marks company by paying an amount of Rs. 62000/- which had a duration of three years. The subscription could be cancelled within 7 days of activation of the program. On attending the first class, he was dissatisfied with the teaching program and on the very same day informed the company to discontinue with the subscription. Several communications were made by the complainant requesting for refund of the amount but the company failed to pay the same. A legal notice was also issued by the complainant to which the company did not reply. Therefore, the complainant approached the consumer forum praying for appropriate compensation. Since the complainant is a minor, the complaint was filed through his legal guardian.
No one appeared on behalf of the company. Therefore, the commission proceeded with the matter after hearing the submissions of the complainant only.
Observations:
The bench examined the whatsapp chats of the complainant requesting the company to terminate the program and the company's failure to pay the same. It was observed that the cancellation request was well within the 7 day time period. The bench highlighted the unethical practice of collecting total fee from students for services which are yet to be provided by such institutes or companies. This leaves the students with no remedy once the entire fee is paid. Reliance was placed on the judgment of NCDRC in FIITJEE vs Manathi Rath Rev. Pet. 3365/2006 where orders were passed to refund the amount for unutilised period of the course.
Thus, it was held that retaining of entire fee by the company and refusal to refund even for the time period in which the complainant took no classes amounts to 'deficiency in service'. It was further held that the company has made a gain in an unjust manner by charging the lump-sum fees which is an unfair trade practice.
Hence, the complaint was allowed with the following reliefs:
- Refund of course fee of Rs. 62000/- with interest @ 6% p.a.
- Rs. 20,000 as compensation for harassment.
- Rs. 15,000 towards litigation expenses.
Case name: Gurjas Singh Chhabra vs Extra Marks
Case number: Complaint Case 121/2022 [ Delhi district commission, Central district]
Date of decision: 05.12.2024