Hyderabad District Commission Holds EduBridge Learning Liable For Failure To Refund Fee To Dissatisfied Student

EduBridge is a 'Workforce Development Platform' that helps learners in building careers with leading corporates through training & other career-building services.

Brief Facts:

The Complainant enrolled in an online course in accounting, taxation, and GST with an institute run by EduBridge Learning. To pay the course fee, the Complainant obtained a loan from K.M. Global Credit Private Limited (“KM Global”). This loan arrangement was facilitated by EduBridge, which introduced the complainant to KM Global. The course commenced on June 1, 2023, but after attending two classes, the Complainant faced technical issues, such as poor signal reception, which hampered his ability to follow the classes properly. Additionally, the Complainant found the quality of the classes subpar and decided to discontinue them. Subsequently, the Complainant informed EduBridge of his decision.

Despite the Complainant's early withdrawal from the course, EduBridge still claimed the full loan amount from KM Global. When the Complainant received a legal notice from KM Global demanding payment of loan instalments, he reached out to EduBridge and requested a refund of the course fee. However, it replied that the fee was non-refundable. The Complainant made multiple attempts to resolve the issue with EduBridge but didn't receive any satisfactory response. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I, Hyderabad, Telangana (“District Commission”) against EduBridge and KM Global.

EduBridge and KM Global Credit didn't appear before the District Commission for proceedings.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission held that EduBridge qualified as a coaching centre as it was operating independently without any university's oversight. Therefore, it held that EduBridge falls under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission. Upon reviewing the documentary evidence, the District Commission held that the Complainant discontinued the course shortly after enrolling and sought a refund of the fee, which was refused by EduBridge based on its policy that fees once paid were non-refundable. However, the District Commission noted that EduBridge did not provide any services since the Complainant stopped attending the course due to poor signal reception and substandard class quality. Consequently, the District Commission held that not refunding the course fee constituted a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice by EduBridge.

The District Commission directed EduBridge to pay a full refund of the course fee to the Complainant. Additionally, the District Commission directed EduBridge to pay a compensation of complainant Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant for the mental harassment and agony suffered along with Rs. 5,000/- for litigation costs.

Case Title: Sai Kumar vs EduBridge Learning and Ors.

Case Number: C.C. No. 580/2023

Date of Pronouncement: 14.06.2024