Disputes Involving Coaching Centres Fall Within The Jurisdiction Of Consumer Commissions, Chandigarh Commission Orders Coaching Teacher To Refund Fee

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench led by Mr Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) held a coaching teacher liable for failure to provide adequate coaching services, as promised, to a student preparing for the IELTS examination. The teacher was ordered to refund the fee paid by the student for availing the service.

Brief Facts:

Mr Abhishek (“Complainant”) agreed with Harpreet Kaur (“Teacher”) for personal coaching classes aimed at preparing him for the IELTS examination. He paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in cash to the teacher for coaching across all four modules of the IELTS General Training. However, the complainant alleged that the teacher exhibited a lackadaisical approach and provided coaching for just five days, from November 21, 2022, to November 28, 2022. Furthermore, the teacher had cited her sister’s marriage as the reason for a temporary pause in the coaching, assuring the Complainant that she would complete his IELTS syllabus by December 2022. However, she continually delayed the Complainant’s coaching without any substantial progress and failed to respond to his requests for either the completion of the coaching or a refund of the Rs. 10,000/- he had paid. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”)

The Complainant contended that his attempts to contact the teacher went in vain, as her premises appeared locked during his visits, and the teacher remained unresponsive. Consequently, He claimed a refund from the teacher of the Rs. 10,000/- along with interest, compensation, and litigation costs.

In response to these contentions, the complainant did not appear before the District Commission or file a written version to counter the Complainant’s claims, leading the District Commission to proceed with the case ex parte.

Observations by the Commission:

Referring to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s decision in Manu Solanki & Ors. Vs. Vinayaka Mission University (Formerly known as Vinayaka Mission’s Research Foundation Deemed University), Consumer Case No. 261 of 2012, the District Commission noted that any defect or deficiency or unfair trade practice about a service provider like ‘Coaching Centres’ falls within the jurisdiction of consumer forums.

Further, the District Commission noted that the Complainant had presented an affidavit in support of his claims, while the teacher, despite being duly served with the complaint, did not present a written version or appear before the Commission to challenge the Complainant’s allegations. This lack of response from the teacher created a reasonable presumption that the complaints were indeed valid.

Based on these findings and the absence of a counterargument from the teacher, the District Commission ruled in favour of the Complainant. It ordered the teacher to refund the Rs. 10,000/- paid by the Complainant, along with interest at a rate of 9% per annum from the date of payment until the date of actual repayment. The teacher was given 90 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order to comply with this directive.

Case Title: Abhishek vs Harpreet Kaur

Case No.: CC/31/2023

Advocate for the Complainant: Sahil Mehta

Advocate for the Respondent: None (Ex parte)

Click Here To Read/Download Order