Ernakulam District Commission Holds Cynosure Institute Liable For Failure To Refund Fee Despite Providing Assurance

Brief Facts:

The Complainant approached Beenu Balakrishnan (“Operator”) of Cynosure Institute (“Institute”) to get enrolled in a 2-month long English offline class. The Operator gave a discounted offer of Rs. 9,000/- on the condition of joining immediately. Additionally, she assured the Complainant that a 100% refund would be initiated if the services turned out to be dissatisfactory. The Complainant accepted the offer and paid the fee. The Complainant contacted the Institute several times. However, no clarity on class details was provided. The institution's staff told the Complainant to not call them and refused to refund the fee because the Complainant refused to join additional courses. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a police complaint. Despite these measures, the Institute remained unresponsive. The Complainant lost her job and time due to these issues. Subsequently, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, Kerala (“District Commission”).

In response, the Institute contended that the complaint was filed with the motive of tarnishing the reputation of the Institute, which was successfully operational since 2004. The Complainant requested several discounts for the course which was originally valued at Rs. 11,000/-. The course fee was finally reduced to Rs. 8000/- and the Complainant only paid Rs. 4,000/- on enrollment. Even after allowing part payment on the condition that the balance amount would be paid within a week, the Complainant failed to do so.

Observations of the Commission:

The District Commission referred to Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“the Act”) which defines a consumer as a person who buys goods or hires or avails any service for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. Looking at the evidence of the payment of Rs. 4,000/- made by the Complainant, the District Commission held that the Complainant was indeed a consumer as per the Act.

The District Commission further noted that the Institute failed to refund the paid amount despite making promises of 100% return and also refused to provide clarity on class schedules. This conduct amounted to both negligence and deficiency in service under the Act. The Institute was held liable for breaching the Complainant's trust by dishonouring the contractual arrangement and cutting off communication.

The District Commission further noted that the defence provided by the Institute heavily depended on its reputation. However, the reputational defence did not justify its failure to provide adequate service. As a result, the Institute and its Operator were directed to refund Rs. 4,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs.

Case Title: Amrutha K.A. vs Beenu Balakrishnan

Case No.:C.C. No. 289/2023

Pronouncement Date: May 17th, 2024