Recently, the Central Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) directed IAS Gurukul, a coaching institute in Rajender Nagar, to refund a student Rs. 62,363 due to “deficiency in services”. The commission also ordered the institution to pay Rs.10,000 in compensation for harassment and mental agony, along with Rs. 5,000 as litigation costs. The case arose from a complaint filed by a student, Satya, who alleged that the institute’s advertised services were misleading and not delivered as promised.
The complainant, Satya had paid Rs. 98,000 to IAS Gurukul for coaching services. However, after enrolling, she discovered that the institute failed to provide several key services advertised in its brochure, such as personal attention, counselling, test series, and guidance from previous years’ toppers. She further claimed that the mentors mentioned in the brochure never interacted with students, and no sessions were conducted on personality development or doubt clearing. Feeling misled, she approached the consumer forum seeking relief.
The DCDRC bench, comprising President Inder Jeet Singh and member Rashmi, held that IAS Gurukul was “guilty of publishing misleading advertisements” to entice students while failing to honour the promises made therein. The panel observed that the institute had engaged in unfair trade practices and provided deficient services, thereby unjustly enriching itself at the expense of the students. The commission further rejected the institute’s contention that the complainant had attended classes for nine months, noting that the attendance records did not substantiate this claim.
Moreover, the coaching institute failed to produce any evidence to demonstrate that the advertised services, particularly those related to mentorship and faculty interaction, had been rendered. The commission emphasized that as the complainant had attended classes for only four months, the institute was liable to refund the fees for the remaining seven months. Based on the evidence submitted by the complainant, the commission concluded that a deficiency in service had been established, and the institute was liable to compensate the complainant accordingly.