Cuttack District Commission Holds UPSC Pathshala Liable For Failure To Refund Fee As Per Its T&C, Orders Refund And Compensation

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (Odisha) bench comprising Sri Debasish Nayak (President) and Sri Sibananda Mohanty (Member) held UPSC Pathshala (Coaching Institute) liable for failure to refund the appropriate coarse fee as per its T&C after the Complainant faced several issues with its website and outdated teaching methodologies. Out of Rs. 40,000/-, the District Commission directed the Institute to refund Rs. 35,324/-, pay Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and harassment, along with Rs. 10,000/- for the cost of litigation.Brief Facts:Mr. Ashirbad Tripathy (“Complainant”) paid Rs. 40,000/- for an online learning course aimed at UPSC examination preparation classes to UPSC Pathshala (“Institute”) with a duration of three years. After an initial period of smooth functioning, the Complainant started facing issues while accessing classes, including frequent downtime of the institute's website, difficulties in joining online classes due to cumbersome navigation, and outdated content on the website dating back to 2016/2017. Further, the teaching methodologies did not align with the evolving trends of the UPSC examination. Despite multiple complaints to the institute, the issues persisted, prompting the Complainant to request a refund of the remaining course fee, amounting to Rs. 35,324/-, after deducting Rs. 4676/- for services used during the 128 days from January 19, 2022, when the online classes commenced. The institute acknowledged the refund request, stating that it was under process. However, later, the institute unexpectedly informed the Complainant that his refund request could not be processed. Dissatisfied with this response, the Complainant sought redress from the National Consumer Help Line, Government of India, and the State Consumer Advice Centre, Government of Odisha, but didn't receive any resolution. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack, Odisha (“District Commission”). The institute didn't appear before the District Commission for proceedings. Therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte.Observations by the Commission:Examining the T&C filed by the Complainant, specifically clause 6, the District Commission noted that the institute was obligated to refund full or partial course fees if a student faces problems in joining online classes. In the absence of a written version from the institute, the District Commission held that clause 6 specified that problems should be resolved within 30 days. It noted that the institute violated this condition and took 52 days to process the Complainant's refund request.Referring to the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Fitjee Ltd. Vs. Jaipreet Singh Kaushal [R.P. No.198/2015], the District Commission emphasized that educational institutions fall under the definition of "service" as per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Considering the institute as an educational service provider, the District Commission held the institute liable for deficiency in service by not refunding the rest of the course fees to the Complainant when it failed to provide proper service.Consequently, the District Commission directed the institute to refund the rest of the course fees, Rs. 35,324/-, to the Complainant with 8% interest from the date of the refund application. Additionally, the institute was directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant for mental agony and harassment, along with Rs. 10,000/- for the cost of litigation.Case Title: Mr. Ashirbad Tripathy vs The Managing Director, UPSC Pathshala Case No.: C.C.No.289/2023 Advocate for the Complainant: Complainant-in-person Advocate for the Opposite Party: None (Ex-parte) Click Here To Read/Download Order

Cuttack District Commission Holds UPSC Pathshala Liable For Failure To Refund Fee As Per Its T&C, Orders Refund And Compensation

Smita Singh

Tags