District Consumer District Redressal Commission Ernakulam Holds Byju's Learning App Liable For Deficiency In Service By Coercing And Harassing Complainant

Background

The Complainant, father of an 8^th Grade student was approached by Byju's Learning App, a learning support app service provider, convincing him to enrol his son on a trial basis. Initially, the Complainant was unwilling to do so but the Opposite Party called him persistently asking him to enrol his child with the assurance that a refund of Rs.16000 would be made to him if he was dissatisfied with the course. As per the Complainant, the Opposite Party claimed the course would be highly beneficial for the Complainant's son.

The Opposite Party sent a message to the Complainant confirming an online trial class through a Zoom meeting on 20/08/2028, however, the Complainant's son could not attend it as it was done on a short notice.

On 27/08/2023, the Complainant was contacted again asking for his son's ID card and Aadhaar card. He was reassured that if he was dissatisfied, he would be refunded. To avoid the continued harassment of being called again and again, the Complainant finally paid Rs.16,000 towards the Opposite Party.

As per the Complainant, his son did not find the services up to the mark and did not want to continue. The Complainant contacted the Opposite Party and conveyed the same. The Opposite Party did not respond to this information. Three weeks later, the Complainant was contacted again by the Opposite Party making persistent calls, asking him to make a further payment of Rs.16,000. The Complainant sent emails informing the Opposite Party that his son was not interested in the course. However, there was no response on behlf of the Opposite Parties and the calls continued, resulting in the Complainant feeling harassed.

As per the Complainant, the harassment continued causing mental distress. Eventually he filed a Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 claiming that the Opposite Party was involved in unfair trade practices.

The Opposite Party did not appear, hence leading in ex parte proceedings.

Findings of the Commission

On perusal of the evidence, the Commission observed that the Complainant was not willing to purchase the learning support service but he was coerced into doing so by the Opposite Party. Even after he conveyed to the Opposite Party that his son was not satisfied with the service, there was no response from the Opposite Party. Moreover, he was neither refunded nor did the Opposite Party stop asking for a further payment of Rs.16,000. The Bench held that the Complainant was harassed with continuous calls and demand for additional payment which constituted a deficiency in service under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It was held that harassing the Complainant continuously by coercing him was an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Act.

The Bench further held that since the Opposite Party remained silent and did not respond, the same amounted to admission of wrongdoing.

Therefore, the Commission directed the Opposite Party to refund 16,000 to the complainant, pay 25,000 as compensation for mental agony, financial loss, physical hardship and suffering caused to the Complainant and Rs.10,000 as litigation expenses.

Filed on: 17/11/2023

Decided on: 30/01/2025

Case Title: Stalin. N. Gomaz versus Byju's Learning App

Counsel for Complainant: Adv. Mishal. M.Dasan

Click Here To Download Judgment/Order