STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH [ADDITIONAL BENCH]

Appeal No. : 111 of 2025 Date of Institution : 14.02.2025 Date of Decision : 10.11.2025

1] EduMont Classes, Tower B6, Jaypee Wishtown Klassic, Sector 134, Noida, Uttar Pradesh – 201304 (Registered Name : EDUMONT LLP).

2] Rohan Chopra S/o Manoranjan Chopra, aged around 31 years R/o 2, Bank Enclave, Laxmi Nagar, Distt. East Delhi, Delhi working as an Academic Director at EduMont LLP, Tower B6, Jaypee Wishtown Klassic, Sector 134, Noida, Uttar Pradesh – 201304.

3] Mohit Taneja S/o Gopal Krishan Taneja, aged about 25 years R/o

1400, Housing Board Colony, Sector 14, Sonipat, Haryana working as Program Advisor at EduMont LLP, Tower B6, Jaypee Wishtown Klassic, Sector 134, Noida, Uttar Pradesh – 201304 Appellants/Opposite Parties VERSUS Lovem Bansal S/o Sh. Vinod Bansal R/o 246, Pipliwala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

….Respondent/Complainant BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY PRESIDING MEMBER MR. PREETINDER SINGH MEMBER ARGUED BY :-

Sh. Prabhdeep Singh Bindra, Advocate for the appellants.

Sh. Sourav Duvedi, Advocate for the respondent.

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER The instant appeal has been filed by the opposite parties (appellants herein) seeking setting aside of order dated 02.01.2025 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (referred to as the 'District Commission') vide which consumer complaint No.707 of 2022 filed by the complainant (respondent herein) has been partly allowed directing the appellants to refund the amount of ₹1,09,000/- to the respondent alongwith interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 13.09.2022 till date of actual realization besides paying an amount of ₹10,000/- as compensation for harassment as well as litigation expenses, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

2] The case of the respondent/complainant before the District Commission was that in May 2022, while exploring higher education options, he learned about the CPA (Certified Public Accountant) course and contacted the appellants/ Opposite Parties. He sent his graduation mark sheets to appellant No.2 and received an eligibility mail dated 22.05.2022, confirming his qualification to take the CPA exam and stating that no further programme was required until after passing all CPA exams. Relying on this, he enrolled in the Edumont CPA programme and paid ₹1,09,000/- as academic fees and support charges. On 28.07.2022, after submitting all necessary documents for enrolment, he was informed that his education was sufficient but advised to join a PG programme, preferably M.Com. However, after about 40 days of correspondence, he was told that M.Com enrolment was mandatory for CPA exam eligibility and that he could appear for the CPA exam only after completing the 1st semester of M.Com. Consequently, he could not appear for the CPA exam as initially assured. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the appellants/opposite parties, the respondent/complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission.

3] The appellants/opposite parties contested the complaint before the District Commission by filing their reply, wherein, it was pleaded that upon being contacted via email dated 22.05.2022, they informed the respondent/complainant that his mark sheets made him eligible to appear for the CPA examination in the USA. However, since he lacked the required 150 semester-hour credits, he was not eligible for the CPA license and was advised to enroll in a higher education programme such as M.Com to fulfill that requirement. Upon the complainant’s willingness, opposite party No.1 provided CPA books & supplementary materials and CPA training/online classes under invoice dated 23.06.2022 for ₹1,09,000/-. The appellants/ opposite parties denied ever changing their advice or stating that M.Com enrolment was necessary to appear for the CPA exam, and further denied that the respondent/complainant was ineligible to