A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Delhi recently ordered IAS Gurukul, a well-known civil services coaching institute, to refund ₹62,363 to a dissatisfied student and pay an additional penalty of ₹15,000 as compensation for mental harassment and litigation costs. [Satyata v IAS Gurukul]
A Coram of Commission President Inder Jeet Singh and member Rashmi Bansal concluded that IAS Gurukul had engaged in unfair trade practices by making false claims in its brochures and advertisements to lure students.
"Considering the facts and circumstances of the cases and above discussion, the Commission is of the view that OP is guilty of publishing the advertisements and brochure as misleading in order to lure the students without intention to fulfil the promises made therein," the order dated September 30 stated.
The complainant, who enrolled in IAS Gurukul’s "Full IAS Preparation Program" for ₹98,000 in November 2017, claimed that the institute did not deliver on its promises of quality faculty and comprehensive coaching.
Despite assurances of 100% syllabus coverage and personal mentorship, she attended classes for four months before realizing that the key subjects lacked qualified faculty and that no personalized mentoring, test series or other promised resources were provided.
In March 2018, after raising her concerns and receiving no satisfactory response from the institute, she served a legal notice seeking a refund. She also demanded ₹15 lakh in punitive damages for the time and effort wasted due to the institute’s failures.
Further, the complainant filed a criminal complaint but no action was taken. As a result, she moved the Commission.
IAS Gurukul countered the claim by asserting that the complainant had attended classes for nine months without raising any complaints during the period.
The institute alleged that her refund demand came only after she decided to withdraw from the IAS preparation for personal reasons.
Further, IAS Gurukul denied any deficiencies in its services, claiming that the complainant was satisfied with the coaching during her attendance and that she had taken demo classes before enrollment.
The institute also refuted allegations of misleading advertisements, stating that the brochure referred to was published after the complainant had already enrolled.
It further noted that no first information report (FIR) was registered based on her police complaint, suggesting there was no merit to her claims.
The Commission noted that IAS Gurukul failed to provide evidence supporting its claim that the complainant had attended nine months of classes. Without attendance records or proof that the services were rendered as promised, the complainant’s claim of attending only four months of classes was accepted.
The Commission also found that the advertisements and brochures used by the institute were misleading. Despite claiming that renowned mentors and faculty would guide students, the institute provided no evidence that these individuals interacted with the students.
Referring to Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission's decision in FIIT JEE Ltd vs. Minathi Rath, the Commission condemned the practice of charging full fees upfront without delivering services. It held that the complainant was entitled to a refund for the unutilized months of the course, as retaining the entire fee was unjust.
Therefore, the Commission ordered IAS Gurukul to refund ₹62,363, for the seven unutilized months of the course and to compensate the complainant with ₹15,000 for mental agony and cost of litigation.
[Read Order]