The coaching class took fees under the pretext of tutoring as per ISC pattern, but instead was providing tuitions based on CBSE standard

State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand while dismissing an appeal of a coaching class asked the class to return tuitions fee and pay a fine for causing stress to the parent.

The State Consumer forum also found Takshila Institute guilty of deficiency in services. The Institute had challenged order passed by the District Consumer Forum.

Bhupinder Singh had filed a case against Takshila Institute in the District Consumer Forum alleging that the Institute failed to provide tuitions to his son as per their agreement. While taking admission for the classes, Mr Singh was promised that his son would be provided tuitions as per the Indian School Certificate (ISC) standards after paying a fee of Rs7,216.

However, when the tuitions started, Mr Singh’s son, Gagandeep, found that he was the only student in his class admitted for the ISC pattern while the rest were studying under Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) pattern. Mr Singh complained regarding the wrong tuitions that was being provided to his son, but the Institute paid no heed. Finally, Mr Singh approached the District Consumer Forum for justice.

On several hearings, the Institute failed to appear before the Forum and kept delaying the dates by saying that it needed time to file reply and was having a dialogue with Mr Singh of an amicable settlement of the issue. After several dates, finally the Forum proceeded with the hearing ex-parte and delivered a judgement on 25 August 2010 in Mr Singh’s favour.

Takshila Institute then appealed to the State Commission, which noticed that on several occasions the Institute failed to appear before the District Forum despite being granted time to settle the case. Takshila also submitted various documents to support its case before the State Commission.

Defending its stand, Takshila told the Commission that they had informed that the tuitions would be for CBSE pattern and not for ISC as claimed by Mr Singh. It also submitted two previous judgements to support its stand. However, the State Commission said that the two previous judgements ‘have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case’.

The State commission observed that the institute failed to provide any document on records to prove that Mr Singh was aware that the institute provides coaching only as per CBSE pattern. It also said the institute could not provide coaching to Mr Singh's son according to ISC pattern, eventually making him to withdraw his son's admission.

Dismissing the appeal filed by Takshila Institute, the State Commission said, "The institute has committed deficiency in service and the District Forum has rightly directed the- institute to refund the fee of Rs7,216/- to Mr Singh and has also rightly awarded sum of Rs1,000/- towards mental agony and litigation expenses."