No graduation, no LLB: Why national consumer commission ordered Jaipur college to refund fees

Commission’s findings: No negligence by college

• After carefully reviewing the material, the national consumer commission concluded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the college.
• The bench observed that the institution had acted under a bona fide impression that the complainant was duly qualified, based on the representation made at the time of admission.

• “Undisputedly, the Complainant was not holding requisite qualification for the purpose of the admission to LLB,” the national consumer body noted.
• The commission added that the lack of basic qualification was revealed only before the first-year examination forms were submitted to the institution.
• Given these findings, the NCDRC held that the orders of the district forum and the state commission were unsustainable and set them aside.

Refund with interest ordered

• While absolving the college of any wrongdoing, the commission ensured that the complainant was not left without remedy.
• It directed the college to refund Rs 7,610 along with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of admission until the date of refund.
• The refund is to be made within two months.
• The consumer commission also clarified that there would be no order as to costs.

How dispute arose

• The case traces back to the admission of one Anjani Kumar Sharma in 2017 to the LLB course at Bharat Law College, Jaipur.
• At the time of admission, the college accepted the documents submitted by the student and granted him entry into the programme.
• Trouble surfaced later when the complainant was required to submit documents for appearing in the first-year LLB examination.
• It was then discovered that his graduation degree was of two years’ duration, whereas the rules mandated a three-year graduation qualification for eligibility to the LLB course.
• In other words, the student did not meet the basic academic criteria required for admission.
• Feeling aggrieved, the student approached the consumer fora.
• Both the district forum and the Rajasthan state consumer commission passed orders in his favour.
• Challenging those decisions, the college moved the NCDRC in revision.

Hearing before NCDRC

• When the matter was taken up on February 4, 2026, none appeared on behalf of the respondent (student), and he proceeded against ex parte.
• The commission heard counsel for the college and examined the records.
• During arguments, counsel for the petitioner-college, advocate Umesh Nagpal submitted that without delving into the technicalities or merits of the case.

• The counsel stated that the college was willing to refund the actual amount paid by the complainant.
• The amount included Rs 6,000 towards admission fees and Rs 860 and Rs 750 towards miscellaneous charges totalling Rs 7,610.

Balanced approach

• The decision reflects a pragmatic and balanced approach.
• On one hand, the commission recognised that the student did not meet the mandatory eligibility criteria and that the college had not acted negligently.
• On the other, it ensured restitution of the fees paid, with interest, to prevent unjust enrichment.
• The ruling sends a subtle but important message: educational institutions must exercise due diligence at the stage of admission, but students also bear responsibility for accurately representing their qualifications.

• Where mistakes occur without mala fide intent, consumer fora may lean toward equitable relief rather than punitive findings.
• With this order, the NCDRC brought to a close an eight-year-old dispute that began with an admission and ended with a refund.