NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. NC/FA/962/2016 (Against the Order dated 4th April 2016 in Complaint No. 186/2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra)

WITH NC/IA/8105/2016 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

RAVI PRABHU PRESENT ADDRESS - APOLLO COMPLEX, 104, R.K. SINGH MARG, , ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI-

400069 .......Appellant(s)

Versus M/S. INTERNATIONAL LEARNING WAREHOUSE & ANR.

PRESENT ADDRESS - WEREHOUSE, OVERSEAS EDUCATION CONSULATANTS IDEA SUQARE, B-42, OFF NEW LINK ROAD, VEERA DESAI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, ABOVE KALYAN JEWELLERS, ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI-400053 THE WEST LONDON COLLEGE PRESENT ADDRESS - C/O EALING, HAMMERSMITH AND WEST LONDON COLLEGE, GILDDON ROAD, LONDON, ENGLAND, W 14 9BL -

PRESENT ADDRESS - -

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. SADHNA SHANKER , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

MR. UDAY PRABHU, POA (VC)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 11/02/2026

ORDER

JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER This Appeal has been filed against the impugned Order dated 04.04.2016 in RBT/CC/13/186, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, vide which, the Complaint filed by the Appellant was dismissed.

2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant/Appellant, intended to pursue an MBA in the UK and applied through the Opposite Party No. 1/Respondent No. 1 (an overseas educational consultancy based in Hyderabad with a branch in Mumbai) affiliated with the Opposite Party No. 2/Respondent No. 2 (a UK-based educational Institution). The Complainant was conditionally admitted on 25.10.2005, with the offer confirmed on 19.06.2006 upon successful graduation with 73% marks. Pursuant thereto, he paid £7,000/- (approx. Rs. 5,96,477/-) in advance as tuition fees for 9 subjects, while boarding charges were to be paid directly during his UK stay. He commenced the MBA course on 25.07.2006 but attended only 23-25% of the scheduled sessions due to various deficiencies on the part of the Opposite Parties. Further, only 3 course Manuals were provided instead of 9, the crucial course content and guidance were missing, the promised academic facilities were not delivered, and his dietary and living arrangements were inadequate.

3. Despite being granted an exemption in one subject (Accounting) on 25.10.2006, no prorated tuition fee refund was offered, and instead an additional £100/- was demanded, allegedly for administrative purposes. Consequently, the Complainant discontinued the course, suffered financial and professional losses including forfeiture of sponsorship support from his employer (who later demanded Rs. 25.00 lakhs), and incurred substantial personal expenses exceeding Rs. 20.00 lakhs during his 316-day UK stay. Upon his return to India on 31.05.2007, he sought redressal and refund from the Opposite Parties. Despite repeated representations and legal opinions, only a partial refund of £2,100/- (Rs. 1,70,518/-) was made in May 2008, allegedly toward the cost of Manuals. It is the case of the Complainant that the Contract clearly stated a refundable fee minus only £100/- (1.43%) and makes no mention of separate Manual fees, thus the withholding of approximately Rs. 2,76,839/- is illegal and amounts to unjust enrichment and breach of trust. Aggrieved with the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, he filed his Complaint before the Ld. State Commission, Maharashtra.

4. In its Written Statement to the Complaint before the Ld. State Commission, the Opposite Party No. 1/ Respondent No. 1 resisted the Complaint and denied all the material averments made by the Complainant. The Opposite Party No. 1 averred that the Complaint is misconceived, legally untenable, and devoid of merit, warranting dismissal with costs; That the Opposite Party No. 1 has been wrongly impleaded as a Partner or Associate of the Opposite Party No. 2, whereas no such legal or commercial relationship exists bet