Coaching centre changes venue mid-course, Gurugram student wins Rs 64,000

The order concluded that the opposite party is hereby held guilty of providing a severe deficiency in service to the complainant.

Student sought refund after relocation

The complainant enrolled his ward in a personality development course conducted by Sanjeev Datta Personality School at its Gurugram centre on December 24, 2018, after paying Rs 77,290 as the course fee. At the time of admission, classes were being conducted at the institute’s Sector-57 centre, which was conveniently located near the complainant’s residence.

According to the complainant, the institute later shifted the venue of the classes to its Golf Course Road (DLF Phase-1) centre, making the daily commute significantly longer and causing inconvenience to his ward.
He requested the institute to provide transport facilities for pick-up and drop-off, but the request was declined. Claiming that the sudden change of venue amounted to a deficiency in service, he sought cancellation of the enrolment and a refund of the Rs 77,290 fee.

Despite repeated requests and a legal notice, the institute did not refund the amount, prompting him to approach the commission seeking relief.

School denied early venue change

The school contested the complainant’s allegation that the venue had been changed within a month of admission. It relied on a WhatsApp message dated June 21, 2019, to show that the school classes were shifted approximately six months after the complainant’s ward had enrolled and attended the course.

The message informed students that future sessions of the course would be held at the Golf Course Road studio while the class timings would remain unchanged. Based on this evidence, the opposite party sought to dispute the complainant’s version regarding the timing of the venue change.

However, it did not produce any evidence to rebut the complainant’s allegations regarding the inconvenience caused or the demand for a refund.

Commission found deficiency in service

The commission observed that the complainant had successfully established his case through his affidavit, payment receipt, and legal notice, while the school failed to produce any substantive evidence to rebut these documents. As a result, the commission accepted the complainant’s allegations regarding deficiency in service.

However, the commission found one part of the complainant’s case to be incorrect. It noted that the complainant had claimed the venue was changed about a month after enrolment, but the WhatsApp message produced by the institute showed that the shift took place on or around June 21, 2019, nearly six months after the ward’s admission on December 24, 2018. The commission therefore concluded that the ward had already attended classes for about six months before the venue was changed.

Despite this discrepancy, the commission held that shifting the venue caused inconvenience to the complainant and amounted to a deficiency in service. Since the complainant’s ward had already availed approximately half of the course before seeking cancellation, the commission considered it appropriate to direct the school to refund only 50 per cent of the course fee, along with interest, compensation for mental harassment, and litigation costs.

Takeway

This ruling reinforces that educational institutes can be held accountable for unilaterally changing essential service conditions, such as the location of classes, if it causes significant inconvenience to consumers. It also clarifies that while consumers deserve compensation for deficient service, refunds may be proportionately reduced where substantial services have already been availed.

Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Haryana helpline: 1800-180-2087) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.