Chandigarh Consumer Commission Orders BYJU's To Refund ₹80,000 For Failing To Provide Promised Services
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, comprising Mr. Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Mr. B.M. Sharma (Member), held BYJU's liable for deficiency in service for failing to provide the promised educational services and refusing to refund the amount paid despite the complainant's timely cancellation request. Brief Facts of the Case: The complainant, Dr....
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, comprising Mr. Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Mr. B.M. Sharma (Member), held BYJU's liable for deficiency in service for failing to provide the promised educational services and refusing to refund the amount paid despite the complainant's timely cancellation request.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The complainant, Dr. Rajesh Tayal stated that on 05.11.2022, a BYJU's counsellor, Poonam Khadka, persuaded him to enroll his daughter, Prisha Tayal (then in Class 9), in a four-year study package covering Classes 9 to 12, including NEET preparation, live classes, complete study material, and a Samsung tablet. He was initially quoted ₹1,68,000, later reduced to ₹1,20,000, and finally offered the full package for ₹80,000.
On these assurances, the complainant paid ₹15,000 on 08.11.2022 and ₹65,000 on 09.11.2022, totaling ₹80,000. However, instead of the promised study material and tablet, the complainant received only two SD cards for Classes 10 and 11 on 14.11.2022. The Class 9 material, tablet, books, and live classes were not provided.
Despite repeated calls and messages, BYJU's did not resolve the issue. The complainant emailed a cancellation and refund request on 15.11.2022, but no refund was issued. Although a tablet was sent in January 2023, live classes were never activated, rendering it useless. The complainant alleged that his daughter's studies were adversely affected due to BYJU's failure to provide the promised services.
Claiming deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, he filed the present complaint seeking refund of ₹80,000, compensation for academic loss and mental harassment, and litigation expenses.
Contentions of the Complaint:
The complainant argued that BYJU's failed to deliver the services it had contractually committed to and did not act on his cancellation and refund request. He contended that despite multiple reminders, BYJU's neither addressed his grievances nor refunded the amount. He asserted that the company's conduct amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, causing academic loss to his daughter as well as mental harassment to the family.
Contentions of the BYJU'S:
BYJU's submitted that the complainant's refund request was raised after the expiry of the 15-day trial/refund period, and therefore the subscription could not be cancelled under company policy. They claimed that, as a goodwill gesture, they had agreed to refund the amount but were unable to process it because the complainant allegedly did not provide the required bank details. BYJU's denied any lapse on their part and argued that they had addressed the complainant's concerns to the extent possible, seeking dismissal of the complaint.
Observations and Decision of the Commission:
The Commission observed that BYJU's failed to justify its refusal to refund the amount despite the complainant's clear cancellation request. The opposite parties did not produce any credible evidence to support their claim that the complainant had withheld bank details or that they had genuinely attempted to process the refund. Their defence was therefore found to be unsupported and unreliable.
The Commission further observed that established rulings of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) hold that coaching centres cannot retain fees when the consumer seeks withdrawal due to non-delivery or inadequacy of services. Such retention of money, especially when long-term courses are involved, has consistently been held to constitute unfair trade practice. The Commission reiterated that BYJU's, being a private coaching provider and not an accredited educational institution, is legally bound to refund fees for services not actually rendered.
It held that BYJU's conduct amounted to deficiency in service, as the company neither honoured its commitments nor acted fairly when the complainant sought cancellation. The Commission also found that the complainant suffered avoidable harassment and inconvenience due to the insensitive handling of the matter.
Accordingly, the Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed BYJU's to:
- Refund ₹80,000 with 9% interest from the date of deposit until realization; and
- Pay ₹20,000 as compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.
The order was directed to be complied with within 45 days of receiving the certified copy.
Case Title: Dr. Rajesh Tayal vs. BYJU's & Ors.
Case No.: DC/AB1/44/CC/472/2023