The district consumer commission in Ghaziabad has directed the Delhi-based headquarters of coaching institute FIITJEE to refund Rs 85,000 to the father of a student. The commission found that the institute failed to deliver classes for the promised 36 months under the purchased package, instead conducting them for only 21 months.
Commission's Order and Compensation
Commission President Anil Kumar Pundir, along with members Shailja Sachan and RP Singh, decided the matter ex parte on April 17. They ordered that Rs 84,980 be paid, along with 6 percent interest per annum from the date of filing the complaint on March 3, 2025, within 45 days of the order. The forum also ordered payment of Rs 10,000 for mental trauma and academic loss suffered by the complainant.
Background of the Case
The case originates from a complaint filed on March 3, 2025, by Arvind Kumar Dohre, a resident of Gulmohar Enclave. He stated that on February 2, 2023, he signed a 36-month contract with FIITJEE's Ghaziabad centre for his son Tanmay to prepare for the IIT joint entrance exam under the classroom coaching programme. He made an initial payment of Rs 34,200 and provided post-dated cheques (PDCs) worth Rs 395,150. However, in January 2025, FIITJEE suddenly stopped classes as the coaching centre shut down, even though the services were supposed to continue until March 2026, thereby violating the contract.
Allegations of Unjust Enrichment
Dohre alleged that despite the suspension of services, FIITJEE received 14 cheque payments totaling Rs 391,590 without providing coaching services. He said, “The total contract value for 36 months was Rs 429,350, but the service provided can be valued at Rs 250,454, meaning that I paid Rs 141,136 extra for services that were never provided.”
Ex Parte Proceedings
Notices were sent to the institute, but no one appeared on its behalf nor filed a counterclaim. The proceedings were then initiated ex parte on May 29, 2025.
Commission's Observations
The commission noted that the opposite party provided services for only 21 months. Even after the services were discontinued, funds continued to be collected through PDC cheques. The commission observed: “It is clear that the complainant enrolled for the three-year classroom programme, the fee for which was Rs 371,650. He also subscribed to the My PAT online test series, the fee for which was Rs 23,799. Apart from this, he also gave PDC cheques for Rs 33,900 for study material, and a total contract of Rs 429,350 was made, out of which the initial payment of Rs 34,200 was made to the opponent through NEFT, and post-dated cheques were issued for the remaining amount.”
The commission further noted that the bank statement proves that the respondent received payment through three post-dated cheques after the classes were suspended. “If the respondent had to suspend the classes for any reason, it was their moral obligation not to accept payment of the advance post-dated cheques. The respondent’s above actions demonstrate a lack of service to the complainant,” the commission ruled.
