“The complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties (online education company) while providing online teaching services to him, and as such we hold that opposite parties are liable for not only deficiency in service but also for unfair trade practice,” the September 21 order read.
Did not attend a single class
The man claimed he paid Rs 40,000 to the company for a cybersecurity expert course following interactions with its counsellor. However, despite the payment, the company did not start the live training on the scheduled date, saying it had been rescheduled.
Later, the man said that to check the quality of the training, he requested pre-recorded sessions of the assigned trainers. The company provided videos of two different trainers. However, according to the man, he found the first trainer to be below average, while the second trainer’s communication and technical explanations were unintelligible.
The man then requested a refund through WhatsApp on November 15, 2025, and through email on November 16, saying that he had not attended any live classes and was unemployed and in a precarious financial situation at the time. The company assured him through WhatsApp that the refund would be processed within 7–21 days.
However, despite multiple follow-ups, the company failed to refund the amount and continued giving assurances that “your refund is in process”. The company also scheduled a “review meeting” for November 28, 2025, which the complainant said never took place.
Story continues below this ad
He subsequently approached the National Consumer Helpline on December 10, 2025, but the matter remained unresolved. Aggrieved, the man approached the commission seeking a refund and compensation.
‘Duty bound to refund’
The commission noted that the company failed to file a written version within the stipulated period and proceeded in its absence. It pointed out that, owing to the substandard training, the company was “duty bound” to refund the entire amount, noting that the complainant had not attended a single class.
The commission also held that the company could not keep the complainant’s “hard-earned” money without providing proper training. “Further, the categorical WhatsApp and email communication between the parties makes it amply clear that the Opposite Parties (company) compelled the complainant to approach the National Consumer Helpline,” it noted.
The commission found that the evidence established deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the company. “It also shows the negligent attitude towards the legal system where they (company) are doing business,” it added.
Story continues below this ad
Accordingly, the commission directed the company to refund the amount of Rs 40,000 and to pay Rs 5,000 towards compensation for mental agony of the complainant. It also directed the company to pay Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs to the complainant within 45 days.
Takeaway
The ruling highlights that where an online education provider is found deficient in delivering promised training and has assured a refund, the consumer commission can direct the provider to refund the course fee along with compensation and litigation costs.
Aggrieved consumers may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Telangana: 0771-2582902) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.
Don’t miss out on these stories:
Warranty claim denied after Rs 13,000 shoes ‘damaged’ in 2 months, man wins Rs 21,000
Story continues below this ad
School ‘refuses refund’ after daughter’s admission cancelled, father wins Rs 36,000
Theatre played 22 minutes of ads before starting movie, ordered to pay Rs 75,000
