Unfair Trade Practices by Coaching Institutes in India

Dear Client, FITJEE being an educational service provider is accountable to its student customers for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. An aggrieved student dissatisfied with the service of a coaching institution can file a complaint under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 before the Dist. Consumer Commission on the ground of deficiency in service claiming refund of coaching fees taken in advance for the whole session by the service provider FITJEE who cannot claim it without providing the service as agreed. Reach out to an Advocate for serving a legal notice to the FITJEE and for filing a complaint against them under the Consumer Protection Act before the Consumer Court claiming a refund of the entire coaching fees along with compensation for harassment. The complaint should be filed within two years from the date of the cause of action, i.e, from the date of refusal to refund the course fees on your demand.

Dear Sir, 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

Dear Client, The Central Government has issued new guidelines for the coaching centers of all the states. After the Coaching Center's New Guidelines, now no coaching centers are allowed to provide admission to children under 16 years of age. The coaching fees for unique courses being charged must be affordable. The receipts for the fees charged have to be made available to students. As per new guidelines, if the student has paid for the course in full and is leaving the direction of the center of the prescribed period, the student might be refunded from out of the prices deposited in advance for the final time, on a foundation in 10 days if the student is staying in the hostel of the coaching center, then the hostel costs and mess rate, and so forth. So, given the guidelines, if FITJEE refuses your claim for a refund, you can file a complaint against them for deficiency in service before the Consumer Forum claiming a refund of tuition fees admissible under new guidelines of the Central Govt. along with compensation for harassment and cost of litigation. The complaint should be filed within two years from the date of cause of action, i.e, from the date of refusal of a refund. Reach out to an Advocate for guidance and steps.

Dear Client, From the prolonged content of your query, it appears you are extremely aggrieved with the service of the service provider and decided to move the Court for relief. On detection of defects in the product, post-purchase is termed and defined under Sec.2(34) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as "Product Liability" which means the responsibility of a product manufacturer or product seller/service centre, to compensate for any harm caused to the consumer/customer by such defective product manufactured or sold or for a deficiency in services relating thereto. Chapter VI, Section 82 to Section 87 of the Consumer Protection Act deals with product liability and So, in the given scenario, serving a strong legal notice to both Service Provider and the product manufacturer, you can file a complaint against them over alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practices before the District Consumer Commission under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 claiming replacement of the vehicle or refund of the cost of the vehicle including the expenses incurred towards repairing/servicing along with compensation for harassment and cost of litigation. As per Section 69 of the CPA, the complaint should be filed within two years from the date of the cause of action. Since you have been facing a deficiency in service since 2017 up to now, your claim is now barred by limitation. So, you have to file a petition seeking condonation of delay on the grounds of continued cause of action along with your complaint petition and lead the evidence to justify your claim before the Commission. If required, hire the service of an experienced Advocate handling consumer cases to navigate the issue in the right way.

Dear Client, The Central Government has issued new guidelines for the coaching centers applicable to all the states across the country. After the Coaching Center's New Guidelines, now no coaching centers are allowed to provide admission to children under 16 years of age. The coaching fees for unique courses being charged must be affordable. The receipts for the fees charged have to be made available to students. As per new guidelines, if the student has paid for the course in full and is leaving the course midway before the prescribed period, the student shall be refunded from out of the prices deposited in advance for the final time, on a pro-rata basis within 10 days, if the student is staying in the hostel of the coaching center, then the hostel costs and mess rate, and so forth. A service provider does not deserve the charges for the services, a consumer did not avail of. So, given the guidelines, if the coaching centre refuses your claim for a refund, you can file a complaint against them for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice before the Dist. Consumer Commission under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 claiming a refund of tuition fees admissible under new guidelines of the Central Govt. along with compensation for harassment and cost of litigation. The complaint should be filed within two years from the date of cause of action, i.e, from the date of refusal to a refund of tuition/coaching fees by the coaching centre.