Byjus aakash refund problem
8 months ago
Hi, I am a 10th grade student and my parents had purchased the Byjus aakash for me (The emi option) and the mentor had said to say with him to cancel and he did not cancel my subscription and a month or so I called for their help line and asked about it they said they had no information and currently some days ago a mentor had said no need to pay the emi(I have recorded the audio also) but they still cut it (Rs.2000) and they are always saying within 24-48 and now 72 hours I will get a call from them, it has been more than 1 month and when they wanted me to buy they called me more than 10 times and the meeting would go up till 10 pm (and because of that I have even got 2 out of 10 as I could not learn for the test) and now I am worried that I will not even get my parents money back.(I and my family are not rich so we can't afford to leave it and my honest opinion youtube is better than Byjus and Byjus aakash)
A.Dear Client,
A service provider cannot enjoy the service charges collected from a customer/consumer without rendering the agreed service to the customer. On cancellation of such a contract or agreement, the service provider is duty bound to refund the charges collected from the customer taking the plea of "non-refundable", Reach out to an Advocate for guidance, for serving a legal notice and filing of a complaint against the Service provider(BYJUES) before the Dist. Consumer Commission claiming refund of entire tuition/coaching fees for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice along with compensation for harassment. To file a complaint against a Service Provider for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, you are required to file the complaint before the Dist. Consumer Commission within TWO YEARS from the date of cause of action However, in case you need any assistance in the matter of service of the legal notice and filing the complaint before the concerned Authorities/Forum, you may contact our legal team with the relevant papers.
A service provider cannot enjoy the service charges collected from a customer/consumer without rendering the agreed service to the customer. On cancellation of such a contract or agreement, the service provider is duty bound to refund the charges collected from the customer taking the plea of "non-refundable", Reach out to an Advocate for guidance, for serving a legal notice and filing of a complaint against the Service provider(BYJUES) before the Dist. Consumer Commission claiming refund of entire tuition/coaching fees for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice along with compensation for harassment. To file a complaint against a Service Provider for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, you are required to file the complaint before the Dist. Consumer Commission within TWO YEARS from the date of cause of action However, in case you need any assistance in the matter of service of the legal notice and filing the complaint before the concerned Authorities/Forum, you may contact our legal team with the relevant papers.
Helpful
Helpful
Share
A.Dear client,
Please send a legal notice asking them to refund the money asap. If that doesn't workjout, please file a complaint under section 35 of the consumer protection act asking for refund and also claiming damages for continuous mental trauma and suffering
Please send a legal notice asking them to refund the money asap. If that doesn't workjout, please file a complaint under section 35 of the consumer protection act asking for refund and also claiming damages for continuous mental trauma and suffering
Helpful
Helpful
Share
A.Fees refund: Should students sue education institutes and can they do so? Yes!
Courtesy: (Dushyant K Mahant, is Founding Partner of Mahant & Mahant
•
Law is on the side of students who want to leave an institute or course mid-way and are seeking refund of fees. This also means, education institutes should not be charging upfront fees for the entire course and refuse refund, in case the student wants it
Consider a typical scenario: A student takes admission to a coaching institute for a two year course, broken into four semesters. The student signs the enrollment /admission form containing various conditions. The institute collects upfront fees for the entire course. After attending classes for a few days/weeks, the student is dissatisfied and wants to opt out, but the institute refuses to refund the fees. It cites a clause in the admissions form that says, "Fees once paid shall not be refunded under any circumstances."
When the student persists with the demand, the institute cites another clause in the form: "In case of any dispute, matter shall be referred to arbitration and institute shall appoint the Arbitrator. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties."
What is the solution? Here are two real life resolutions.
In one case, Dr Minathi Rath, a student’s father, dragged the coaching institute to the Consumer Forum. The State Commission held in 2006, that the clause "fees once paid is not refundable" was "unconscionable and voidable”. It further directed all educational institutes not to charge fees for the whole duration of the course in advance by way of lumpsum payment. The judgement was reported in the media as well. FIIT-JEE challenged this in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), but more about that later.
In another case, a student paid an upfront fee of Rs1.8 lakh for a two-year coaching programme for the IIT-JEE entrance test. After a few classes, he wanted to opt out and sought a refund. As expected, FIIT-JEE (the coaching institute) refused, citing the non-refund clause which he had signed.
When the student’s father persisted with the request to refund the fee (after deducting a portion for the duration he attended the classes) FIIT-JEE initiated arbitration proceedings. The Arbitrator declined to grant the refund and agreed with FIIT-JEE’s submisison that once the student signed the admission form, he was bound by its clauses.
I entered the scene after the arbitration proceedings and filed an objection in the District Court against the order of the Arbitrator. The District Judge reversed the order of the Arbitrator with detailed reasons. The judge specifically noted that when a student signs the admission form, he has no bargaining power to negotiate, or refuse to sign any particular clause in the admission form. Hence, these clauses should not be held against the student. The District Judge also directed the Arbitrator to refund the proportionate fee to the student.
The matter did not end there. FIIT-JEE hired a big law firm and challenged the order in the High Court, although the amount involved was only Rs2 lakh. The matter came up before the High Court on 21 November 2011.
At the hearing, FIIT-JEE conceded that the non-refundable fee clause can be challenged as unconscionable under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, besides being in violation of the principles of public policy. The High Court agreed with the District Judge's view and remanded the matter to the Arbitrator for a decision after taking into account all the recent precedents on the point of law. The order is available here.
Now, in another development just a week prior to the High Court hearing, the NCDRC decided on FIIT-JEE’s appeal in Dr Minathi Rath’s case that we mentioned earlier. It is pertinent to mention here that the Supreme Court had settled the fee issue in the case of Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 696. The Apex Court had expressed unhappiness with educational institutes charging the entire fees upfront and had said that students should only be asked to pay fees for a semester/ year to begin with.
But FIIT-JEE argued before the NCDRC that the ruling of Islamic Academy was not applicable to it since it is not an educational institute but only a coaching institute. The NCDRC was not impressed and upheld the order of the State Commission, directing FIIT-JEE to refund the fees. The order is available here.
We now began a second round of arbitration in the second FIIT-JEE case as directed by the High Court, by providing all the rulings on the dispute. This time the Arbitrator awarded the refund of fees for one year after deduction of statutory fees like Service Tax, etc.
In situations like these, students who want to leave an institute or course mid-way, usually hesitate to appoint a lawyer to argue their case. On the other hand, institutes have the resources for good legal representation. My advice to students is that the law is on your side if you want to fight. And educational institutes should be prudent, desist from charge upfront fees for the entire course, and if they do, should not refuse a refund.
Courtesy: (Dushyant K Mahant, is Founding Partner of Mahant & Mahant
Courtesy: (Dushyant K Mahant, is Founding Partner of Mahant & Mahant
•
Law is on the side of students who want to leave an institute or course mid-way and are seeking refund of fees. This also means, education institutes should not be charging upfront fees for the entire course and refuse refund, in case the student wants it
Consider a typical scenario: A student takes admission to a coaching institute for a two year course, broken into four semesters. The student signs the enrollment /admission form containing various conditions. The institute collects upfront fees for the entire course. After attending classes for a few days/weeks, the student is dissatisfied and wants to opt out, but the institute refuses to refund the fees. It cites a clause in the admissions form that says, "Fees once paid shall not be refunded under any circumstances."
When the student persists with the demand, the institute cites another clause in the form: "In case of any dispute, matter shall be referred to arbitration and institute shall appoint the Arbitrator. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties."
What is the solution? Here are two real life resolutions.
In one case, Dr Minathi Rath, a student’s father, dragged the coaching institute to the Consumer Forum. The State Commission held in 2006, that the clause "fees once paid is not refundable" was "unconscionable and voidable”. It further directed all educational institutes not to charge fees for the whole duration of the course in advance by way of lumpsum payment. The judgement was reported in the media as well. FIIT-JEE challenged this in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), but more about that later.
In another case, a student paid an upfront fee of Rs1.8 lakh for a two-year coaching programme for the IIT-JEE entrance test. After a few classes, he wanted to opt out and sought a refund. As expected, FIIT-JEE (the coaching institute) refused, citing the non-refund clause which he had signed.
When the student’s father persisted with the request to refund the fee (after deducting a portion for the duration he attended the classes) FIIT-JEE initiated arbitration proceedings. The Arbitrator declined to grant the refund and agreed with FIIT-JEE’s submisison that once the student signed the admission form, he was bound by its clauses.
I entered the scene after the arbitration proceedings and filed an objection in the District Court against the order of the Arbitrator. The District Judge reversed the order of the Arbitrator with detailed reasons. The judge specifically noted that when a student signs the admission form, he has no bargaining power to negotiate, or refuse to sign any particular clause in the admission form. Hence, these clauses should not be held against the student. The District Judge also directed the Arbitrator to refund the proportionate fee to the student.
The matter did not end there. FIIT-JEE hired a big law firm and challenged the order in the High Court, although the amount involved was only Rs2 lakh. The matter came up before the High Court on 21 November 2011.
At the hearing, FIIT-JEE conceded that the non-refundable fee clause can be challenged as unconscionable under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, besides being in violation of the principles of public policy. The High Court agreed with the District Judge's view and remanded the matter to the Arbitrator for a decision after taking into account all the recent precedents on the point of law. The order is available here.
Now, in another development just a week prior to the High Court hearing, the NCDRC decided on FIIT-JEE’s appeal in Dr Minathi Rath’s case that we mentioned earlier. It is pertinent to mention here that the Supreme Court had settled the fee issue in the case of Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 696. The Apex Court had expressed unhappiness with educational institutes charging the entire fees upfront and had said that students should only be asked to pay fees for a semester/ year to begin with.
But FIIT-JEE argued before the NCDRC that the ruling of Islamic Academy was not applicable to it since it is not an educational institute but only a coaching institute. The NCDRC was not impressed and upheld the order of the State Commission, directing FIIT-JEE to refund the fees. The order is available here.
We now began a second round of arbitration in the second FIIT-JEE case as directed by the High Court, by providing all the rulings on the dispute. This time the Arbitrator awarded the refund of fees for one year after deduction of statutory fees like Service Tax, etc.
In situations like these, students who want to leave an institute or course mid-way, usually hesitate to appoint a lawyer to argue their case. On the other hand, institutes have the resources for good legal representation. My advice to students is that the law is on your side if you want to fight. And educational institutes should be prudent, desist from charge upfront fees for the entire course, and if they do, should not refuse a refund.
Courtesy: (Dushyant K Mahant, is Founding Partner of Mahant & Mahant
Helpful
Helpful
Share
Read Related Answers
Mental harrasment
Dear Madam,
You have no role in the cause of accidental death of your boyfriend. You may get issue a legal notice to the family of your deceased boyfriend and threaten them to lodge defamation case an...
Cryptocurrency MLM and arrest
Trading of cryptocurrencies is allowed in India and a tax of 30% is charged on them. However, the status of legal tender is not given to Cryptocurrencies and they cannot be used for banking purposes....
Fraud
Dear Client,
US FARGI COMPANY KE BIRUDH LOCAL THANE ME COMPLAINT DAYER KARE AUR CYBER CRIME CELL KO LIKHITRUP SE AVIZOG KARE. APKA COMPLAINT KA INVESTIGATION KE BAD HI APKO RAHAT MIL SAKTA HAI.
CCTV camera on common areas of an apartment
Dear Client,
If your neighbor is not wiling to solve the issue amicably, you can file a complaint to the local police under Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000. As per the provision, a...
Data Entry fraud company
Is online data entry jobs are fake?
it is totally scam people don't fall in to it they are not going to pay you anything they don't have proper company details or contact details you can not contact t...
Read Blogs on Cyber, Internet, Information Technology
Cyber, Internet, Information Technology Lawyers
Find Lawyers by Location
