State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Eduonix Learning Solutions Pvt Ltd ... vs Sehbaz Singh S/O. Amrik Singh on 10 July, 2025
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. : 192 of 2025
Date of Institution : 02.06.2025
Date of Decision : 10.07.2025
Eduonix Learning Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Office No.1601, 16 th Floor,
Kamdhenu 23 West, Plot No.A 10/2 & A 11, MIDC Koparkhairane, Navi
Mumbai - 400710 through its Director Sh. Sushant Das son of Late
Anil Chandra Das.
......Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.
Versus
1] Sh. Sehbaz Singh son of Amrik Singh residence of House
No.1363, Sector-35 B, Chandigarh.
.....Respondent/Complainant.
2] Eduvanz Financing Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing
Director/Directors/Authorized representatives, having registered
office at Times Square Building, B/202, Marol, Andheri East,
Mumbai, Maharashtra 400059.
.....Respondent/Opposite Party No.2.
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 2 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 3 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 cancellation of course and loan but the OP no. 2 kept on demanding the EMIs and started threatening the complainant that non-payment of EMIs will affect the CIBIL score of the complainant. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.
2. The Opposite Parties NO.1 in its reply stated that Eduonix Learning Solutions Private Limited has consistently and diligently updated the Complainant regarding the "LIVE DATA SCIENCE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM" through various emails, ensuring that the Complainant was informed about all pertinent details, including the course content and duration, at all relevant times. The Opposite Party No.1 has consistently and diligently responded to all queries of the Complainant regarding the "LIVE DATA SCIENCE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM" through WhatsApp messages, thereby ensuring 4 that the Complainant was informed about all pertinent details at all relevant times. Moreover, it needs to be highlighted that the Terms and Conditions were unequivocally articulated during the counselling sessions between Eduonix Learning Solutions Private Limited and the Complainant and the same is mentioned on the website also that "YOU CAN CANCEL YOUR SLOT WITHIN 24 HOURS OF YOUR PAYMENT. YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CANCEL YOUR SEAT AFTER THAT". Following these discussions, a draft of the agreement was shared with the Complainant on 1st July 2023, which explicitly stipulated that job interviews would be facilitated only upon the successful completion of the program, and not prior to graduation. The Complainant, having reviewed and agreed to these terms, formally executed the agreement on 19th July 2023, with a copy thereof being duly provided to them. Moreover, Opposite Party No.1 received an email acknowledgment from the Complainant on 4th July 2023, confirming their comprehension and acceptance of all terms and conditions, including the provisions related to job guarantees and refund policies associated with the program. Furthermore, recording of the classes is always available on the student dashboard which was shared with the Complainant also. The content of all classes is still available on the Complainant dashboard which is still active. As the batch was started, the Complainant was not eligible for the course refund as per the agreement he signed with Opposite Party No.1. All other allegations made in the complaint has been denied being wrong.
3. OP No.2 in its reply admitted that the complainant availed credit facility. However, it is averred that there is no cause of action against the answering OP. It is alleged that the complainant is a defaulter in payment of loan amount and as such the OP was constrained to declare the loan amount as NPA as per guidelines of the RBI. Denying any deficiency on its part a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made."
3] During the preliminary hearing, Learned Counsel for the appellant raised two fold submissions, firstly, (1) that respondent 5 No.1/complainant does not qualify as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 as "Live Data Science Certification Program" is an academic, educational course meant to impart specialized knowledge and is not a commercial service and further the relationship between an educational institution and a student is not akin to a consumer-service transaction as held by Hon'ble supreme Court in cases P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC); Maharashi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159; Principal, L.D.R.P. Institute of Technology Vs. Apoorv Sharma, Revision Petition No.2006 of 2019 & Manu solanki v. Vinayak Mission University, 2020(1) CPJ 2010 (NC) and secondly, (2) that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction as the respondent No.1/complainant is residing in Mohali, Punjab and not in Chandigarh.
4] Firstly, coming to the issue with regard to non- maintainability of the consumer complaint before the Consumer Fora, with due respect to the verdicts of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other higher Courts, the argument raised by the Learned Counsel for the appellant that Eduonix Learning Solutions Private Limited is not involved in any kind of commercial activity and is acting as a premier training and skill development organization by offering online courses and workshops, has no legs to stand as firstly, the nature of services being imparted by the appellant is purely a commercial activity and secondly, it also falls within the definition of a 'consumer' as defined in Consumer Protection Act 2019. Even otherwise, it is now well-settled that training and skill development organizations, including those offering online courses and workshops, fall squarely within the ambit of "service providers" under consumer protection jurisprudence. The appellant, in the present case, is providing a service by facilitating the learning and professional development of students through digital means including structured online modules, workshops and certification programs. This directly aligns with the definition of "service" as laid out under Section 2(42) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, which includes any activity made available to potential users for 6 consideration and is not limited to physical delivery alone. The online mode of delivery does not in any manner alter the essential character of the offering, which remains the imparting of education and skill training. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243, observed that the term "service" should be interpreted liberally to encompass all varieties of services made available to consumers for a fee, including educational services. In light of these legal positions, the appellant's activities providing access to curated educational content, interactive workshops, learning assessments and certifications for a fee clearly amount to a service. The form of delivery, whether physical or digital, does not diminish this classification. Therefore, the appellant rightly qualifies as a service provider engaged in educational and skill enhancement activities and the services rendered are subject to the regulatory framework protecting consumer interests.
5] So far as the second contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the appellant that the District Commission at Chandigarh lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint on the ground that the address of respondent No.1/complainant in the certification application form and loan application form was that of Punjab is concerned, the same is misconceived and liable to be rejected in view of the express provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It is pertinent to note that as per the address mentioned in the consumer complaint, the complainant was residing at House No.1363, Sector 35B, Chandigarh at the time of filing the complaint. Under Section 34(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer complaint may be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction: (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or (b) the complainant resides or personally works for gain, or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. It is significant that clause (b) now allows a complainant to file the complaint at the place where he resides or personally works 7 for gain, a liberal and consumer-friendly provision introduced under the 2019 Act, which was not available under the earlier 1986 legislation. Therefore, since the complainant was residing in Chandigarh at the time of filing the complaint, the District Commission at Chandigarh had full and valid territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the matter. Accordingly, the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction raised by the appellant is devoid of legal merit and stands rejected in view of Section 34(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
6] No other point was argued by the Learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party No.1.
7] For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed at the preliminary stage with no order as to costs.
8] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
9] Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
10] File be consigned to Record Room after completion.
Pronounced.
10.07.2025 [RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT [RAJESH K. ARYA] MEMBER Ad 8