5 min readNew DelhiJul 24, 2026 06:30 PM IST
After a Common University Entrance Test (CUET) aspirant dropped out of a coaching programme over alleged poor teaching and repeated class cancellations, a Delhi Consumer Commission ordered the coaching institute to refund Rs 25,000 with interest and pay Rs 10,000 as compensation to his mother. The institute had refused to return the Rs 35,000 fee despite assuring the family at the time of admission that it would be refunded if the student was dissatisfied with the classes.
The South Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II president Monika A Srivastava and member Kiran Kaushal were hearing a complaint filed by one Saroj Bala, the student’s mother, against D Education Endeavour, seeking a refund of the coaching fee along with compensation for mental harassment and litigation costs after the institute allegedly failed to conduct classes as scheduled and later declined to honour its assurance of a refund.
“Any contract or agreement which does not have an Exit Clause is unconscionable. Absence of the exit clause makes the agreement unconscionable as it is one-sided,” the commission said on July 9, directing the coaching institute to refund most of the fee collected from the complainant.
The order is significant for thousands of students and parents who spend heavily on coaching institutes for competitive examinations. It underscores that coaching centres cannot enforce one-sided arrangements that leave students without a meaningful exit while retaining fees for services they have not fully delivered.
Institute promised refund
According to the complaint, mother of the student approached the D Education Endeavor after her son attended demo classes in Accounts and English on March 9, 2024. The institute quoted a total fee of Rs 65,000 for coaching in Accounts, English and Economics for CUET preparation, with Rs 35,000 payable before classes commenced and the remaining Rs 30,000 to be paid in August 2024.
The complainant alleged that the institute persuaded her to complete the admission before the course began and assured her that if her son found the coaching unsatisfactory, the amount already paid would be refunded in full.
Relying on this assurance, she paid Rs 25,000 through UPI on March 17, 2024, and another Rs 10,000 in cash, taking the total payment to Rs 35,000.
Story continues below this ad
Student quits within weeks
The complainant told the commission that her son’s experience did not match the institute’s promises. According to her, no English classes were conducted during the entire month, the teaching of Accounts and Economics was unsatisfactory, and classes were repeatedly cancelled or postponed after students had already reached the institute. She also alleged that the institute was slow in responding to calls and messages raising these concerns.
Consequently, she withdrew her son’s admission and sought a refund of the entire Rs 35,000 on April 20, 2024. The institute, however, refused to return the money, claiming the fee was non-refundable.
‘No refund’ policy challenged
Before the commission, the complainant argued that the institute had never disclosed any “no refund” policy before accepting the payment.
She contended that the receipt mentioning the amount as non-refundable was issued only after the payment had already been made and that neither she nor her son had signed or agreed to any such condition. After the institute allegedly failed to respond to a legal notice, she approached the consumer commission.
Story continues below this ad
Despite being served with notice, the coaching institute did not appear before the commission and was proceeded against ex parte.
Arrangement one-sided
- Examining the material on record, including WhatsApp chats placed by the complainant, the commission observed that several classes had been rescheduled or cancelled during the one month.
- It also noted that neither party had produced any agreement or document containing mutually accepted terms and conditions governing the admission.
- The commission held that the absence of an exit clause made the arrangement unconscionable because it was one-sided.
- The commission held that the institute could retain Rs 10,000 towards the classes already attended by the student and administrative charges.
- It directed D Education Endeavor to refund the remaining Rs 25,000 with interest at 7 per cent per annum from May 2024 until realisation and to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation for the mental harassment and inconvenience caused to the complainant.
- The commission directed the institute to comply with the order within three months. Failing that, it said the amounts awarded would carry interest at 7 per cent per annum until realisation.
Consumer takeaway
A coaching institute cannot rely on one-sided terms to deny a refund. Consumers can approach consumer commissions if they believe there has been a deficiency in service or an unfair trade practice.
For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Delhi: 1800-11-4000) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.
