Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 6779

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT, MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER
Eduonix Learning Solutions Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Sh. Sehbaz Singh – Respondent
Appeal No. : 192 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sh. Dhawal Bhandari
For the Respondents:

The court held that online educational services constitute commercial services under the Consumer Protection Act, allowing consumer complaints based on service transaction definitions.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 2(42) - Appeal against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission partly allowing consumer complaint for breach of service contract and awarding compensation - Services of educating and skill training online constitute commercial services under Consumer Protection Act - Jurisdiction of Consumer Commission valid as complainant resided there. (Paras 4, 5)

(B) Consumer complaint non-maintainable - Online learning constitutes a commercial service under Consumer Protection Act - Jurisdiction established as per the residence of the complainant permitting filing of the complaint at that location. (Para 4)

Facts of the case:
A complaint was filed against the appellant for failure to refund fees after dissatisfaction with an online skills course, claiming unfair trade practices. The complainant argued against loan repayments following an unsuccessful course experience.

Findings of Court:
District Commission had jurisdiction; services provided by the appellant qualify as consumer services under the Act.

Issues: Non-disclosure of job guarantee and limitations in refund policy. The relationship does not negate consumer service definition.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellant qualifies as a service provider under the definition in the Consumer Protection Act, offering commercial services despite being online education. The court reaffirmed that the delivery mode (digital/physical) does not alter the classification.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court held that online educational services constitute commercial services under the Consumer Protection Act, allowing consumer complaints based on service transaction definitions. (!) (!) - The District Commission had jurisdiction; services provided by the appellant qualify as consumer services under the Act. (!) (!) - Complaint proceedings awarded relief including loan clearance, refund, compensation for mental agony, and costs, with timelines and potential interest on delayed compliance. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The appeal was dismissed at preliminary stage for lack of merit. (!)

What is the status of Eduonix Learning Solutions Private Limited as a service provider under the Consumer Protection Act in online education?

What is the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Chandigarh) to entertain this complaint concerning online educational services?

What are the grounds for hold and appeal in this case regarding maintainability and classification of online learning as a commercial service?

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER Argued by:- Sh. Dhawal Bhandari, Advocate for the appellant.

PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER This appeal has been filed by opposite party No.1, namely, Eduonix Learning Solutions Private Limited (appellant herein) assailing order dated 10.03.2025 vide which, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission’) has partly allowed the consumer complaint bearing No.196 of 2024 in the following manner:-

“10. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are jointly and severally directed as under:-

i) To clear the loan account of the complainant without charging anything from the complainant.

ii) To refund Rs.2500/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till onwards after deducting Rs.1000/- as administrative charges.

iii) to pay 10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;

iv) to pay 7000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

11. This order be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) & (iii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(ii)], till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses.

12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.”

2] The facts as stated in the impugned order passed by the District Commission reads thus:-

“Briefly stated that in the month of May, 2023 the representatives of OP No.1 approached the complainant and informed about an IT course amounting to Rs.65,000/- , namely 'Live Data Science Certification Program'. The duration of the said course is of 6 months. The representative of Opposite Party No.1 assured the complainant that it is a job guaranteed program and the OP no.1 will arrange job interviews during the course. The representative of Opposite Party No. I requested the complainant to enroll and attend the demo classes by paying an amount of Rs. 2500/-. It was assured by the representative of Opposite Party No.1 that the said booking amount of Rs.2500/- is refundable if the complainant is not satisfied with the course program or teaching of the online instructors. The representative of OP No.1 further assured that the balance payment of the course fee would be paid in installments after getting job placement. Being allured by the representative of OP No.1 the complainant paid the booking amount of Rs.2500/- on 30.06.2023 through online transfer. Thereafter, the representative of Opposite Party No.1 requested the complainant to avail the educational loan from their business partner i.e. OP No.2. It was further informed by the OP no.1 that it is the standard formality which has to be done by every student in order to get a job placement. Accordingly, the complainant availed the educational loan from the OP No.2 online. The complainant submitted the documents through online mode and availed the educational loan from online Link given by the representative of opposite parties. Thereafter by telephonic conversation with the representative of the OP No.1, the complainant came to know that an amount of Rs.57,330/- has been disbursed to the OP no. 1 from the loan account of the complainant towards the course amount. The complainant attended 2 demo classes on 29.07.2023 and 30.07.2023 and being not satisfied with the course and teaching of the instructors, requested the representative to cancel the enrolment and sought refund of booking amount. The representative of Opposite Party No.1 sought some time to resolve the matter. In the meanwhile the OP No.2 started demanding EMI and as such the complainant duly informed the OP no.2 that he has already requested the OP no.1 for ca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document