Failure To Refund Coaching Fee Despite Withdrawal Of Admission, Mumbai District Commission Holds Rao IIT Academy Liable

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (Maharashtra) bench of Samindara R. Surve (President), Sanjay S. Jagdale (Member) and Sameer S. Kamble (Member) held Rao IIT Academy liable for deficiency in services for failure to refund the fee for its advance course even after the student withdrew his admission after attending just 2-3 classes. Brief Facts: The Complainant was enrolled with Rao IIT Academy for coaching in Boards + JEE (Mains) + JEE Advanced at their Andheri (East) Branch for the academic years 2014-2016. A tuition fee of Rs. 50,000/- was paid by cheque for these classes. At the time of admission, the Complainant was not informed that the admission was granted on a scholarship basis. The Complainant attended only 2-3 classes and found the teaching unsatisfactory which prompted him to request cancellation of admission. He communicated this to a representative of the coaching center who instructed him to submit a written refund application. The Complainant duly applied as requested. Despite regular follow-ups, Rao IIT Academy allegedly failed to refund the amount. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Maharashtra (“District Commission”) against Rao IIT Academy. In response, Rao IIT Academy argued that the total course fee was Rs. 2,25,000/-, out of which the Complainant was entitled to a scholarship deduction of 32.75%. After this deduction, Rs. 1,52,189/- was the amount payable by the Complainants. It acknowledged receiving Rs. 50,000/- as part of payment from the Complainants. It referred to terms and conditions attached to the admission form and argued that refund rules applied only to admissions made on full payment and not those under scholarship. It highlighted discrepancies in the Complainants' claims, noting that while their letter mentioned a change in educational stream as the reason for refund, the Complainant stated dissatisfaction with teaching quality. It contended that such contradictory positions should lead to the dismissal of the complaint. Observations by the District Commission: Regarding the admission form clauses, the District Commission noted that students and parents have limited bargaining power and should not be unduly penalized by terms they might not fully understand or agree with. Given that the Complainant attended only a few days of coaching despite a significant fee payment, the District Commission found the demand for a refund justified. Further, the District Commission acknowledged that Rao IIT Academy's failure to respond to the Complainant's communication caused mental and physical distress. Therefore, the District Commission held Rao IIT Academy liable for deficiency in services. Accordingly, the District Commission ordered Rao IIT Academy to refund Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainants along with 6% interest per annum. Additionally, Rao IIT Academy was directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainants for physical harassment and mental agony, as well as costs incurred. Case Title: Mr Sandeep S. Kadam and Anr. vs RAO IIT Academy Case Number: DCDRC/MS/CC/27/2016 Judgement Dated: 14/05/2024Click Here To Read/Download Order

Failure To Refund Coaching Fee Despite Withdrawal Of Admission, Mumbai District Commission Holds Rao IIT Academy Liable

Smita Singh

Tags