The situation
A student pays a year’s coaching fee in advance and leaves three months in. The batch changed, the promised faculty never came, or they are going home. The institute points to “non-refundable” in the admission form.
Can the consumer commission help? Sometimes. But the law is less settled than most online guides admit. Here is what is settled, what is not, and what to do either way.
Step 1: Is coaching a “service”?
A consumer complaint works only if there is a “consumer” and a “service”.
Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines “service” as service “of any description” made available to potential users. It excludes only two things: a service rendered free of charge, and a contract of personal service.
Section 2(7)(ii) defines a consumer as a person who hires or avails a service for consideration. It includes a beneficiary who uses the service with the payer’s approval. So the parent who paid, and the student who attended, can both qualify.
On the text alone, a paid coaching course fits. The complication is education.
Step 2: The education problem
In Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, (2010) 11 SCC 159, the Supreme Court held that education is not a commodity and that educational institutions do not render a “service”. Disputes about admission, fees and the like, it said, cannot be taken to a consumer forum. That was decided under the 1986 Act, and later Supreme Court orders followed it.
Other Supreme Court decisions took a broader view. The conflict is open. On 15 October 2020, a three-judge bench admitted an appeal in Manu Solanki v. Vinayaka Mission University (Civil Appeal No. 3504 of 2020), recording that there are “divergent views” of the Court on whether an educational institution or university is subject to the Consumer Protection Act. As far as we could find, that appeal is still pending.
Step 3: Where coaching stands
Coaching has generally been treated differently from schools and universities.
- The NCDRC’s larger bench in Manu Solanki (20 January 2020, CC No. 261 of 2012) — the very decision now under appeal — held that universities and educational institutions are outside the Act. But, as reported and as later applied by consumer commissions, it carved out coaching centres: a deficiency or unfair trade practice by a service provider like a coaching centre falls within the consumer fora’s jurisdiction.
- Sehgal School of Competition v. Dalbir Singh, (2009) 3 CPJ 33 (NC), decided 30 April 2009. A student paid for two years of medical-entrance coaching and left after one. The institute relied on a condition that refund was “not possible under any circumstances”. The National Commission called that condition one-sided and “not a fair trade practice”, and upheld the order refunding part of the fee.
- FIIT JEE Ltd. v. Dr. (Mrs.) Minathi Rath (NCDRC, 14 November 2011, R.P. No. 3365 of 2006). A two-year fee taken in advance; the student left after a year. The refund claim for the unattended period was dealt with as a consumer dispute.
- Under the 2019 Act, district commissions still hear such complaints — e.g. Abhishek v. Harpreet Kaur, CC/31/2023, District Commission-II, Chandigarh (2023), relying on Manu Solanki. That order was ex parte, so it shows only that jurisdiction was accepted.
The honest position: a coaching fee dispute can ordinarily be taken to a consumer commission, and commissions have entertained such complaints for over fifteen years. But the leading coaching authority sits inside a judgment the Supreme Court is still examining. A future ruling could change the landscape. Whether any particular complaint succeeds depends on its facts and documents.
Step 4: The “non-refundable” clause
Section 2(46) defines an “unfair contract”. Its list includes, in clause (vi), a term “imposing on the consumer any unreasonable charge, obligation or condition which puts such consumer to disadvantage”.
One technical point. The power to declare a contract term unfair and void sits with the State Commission (sections 47(1)(a)(ii) and 49(2)) and the National Commission — not the District Commission. A District Commission deciding a refund complaint can still examine whether keeping fees for a period never taught amounts to a deficiency in service or an unfair trade practice. That is how Sehgal School was decided.
Step 5: Rules made for coaching
- Rajasthan Coaching Centres (Control and Regulation) Act, 2025 (Act No. 16 of 2025), section 13(4): if a student who has paid in full leaves in the middle of the course, the fee for the remaining period is to be refunded “on pro-rata basis within ten days”, and hostel and mess fees too where the student lives in the centre’s own hostel. It covers centres coaching more than 100 students (s.2(d)). Caution: under s.1(3), the Act comes into force on a date the State notifies. We could not confirm that notification. Check before relying on it. Our separate piece maps the Act in full.
- Ministry of Education, Guidelines for Regulation of Coaching Centre (16 January 2024): the same pro-rata, ten-day refund rule. These are model guidelines sent to States, not a law that binds a centre directly.
And the Central Consumer Protection Authority’s Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisement in Coaching Sector, 2024 (13 November 2024), clause 3(a), treat a false claim about fees or the “course exit policy including fee-refund” as a misleading advertisement. The CCPA acts for consumers as a class. It does not decide your individual refund.
What to actually do
- Collect the paper. Prospectus, admission form, refund policy, fee receipts, bank records, attendance record, and any messages about changes to the course.
- Ask in writing. State the date you stopped, the amount paid, and the pro-rata amount you are asking for. Keep proof of sending.
- Try the National Consumer Helpline. Call 1915, or use the NCH app or consumerhelpline.gov.in. It is a free pre-litigation route.
- File a consumer complaint if needed. Coaching fees fall in the District Commission’s band (consideration up to ₹50 lakh). Under section 34(2)(d) you can file where you reside or personally work for gain — so a family from another State can file in its home district. If the student is under 18, the parent or legal guardian files (s.2(5)(vii)). Filing is online through e-Jagriti. There is no filing fee where the consideration paid is up to ₹5 lakh.
- Watch the clock. Section 69 gives two years from the date the cause of action arose. Delay can be condoned only for sufficient cause.
If the commission finds for the complainant, section 39(1) lets it order return of the charges paid with interest and compensation, among other things. None of that is automatic.
What this does not cover
- Results. No coaching centre may guarantee a rank. Not being selected is not, by itself, a deficiency in service.
- Schools and colleges. Whether their fee disputes belong in a consumer commission is the question pending before the Supreme Court.
- Third-party hostels and PGs. The hostel refund in s.13(4) applies to the coaching centre’s own hostel. A private PG deposit is a tenancy question.
- Named institutes. This piece does not assess any institute.
कोटा में इसका क्या मतलब है / What it means in Kota
Kota has its own District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. But many Kota students come from other States, and for them the more practical forum is usually the one near home.
- Where to file. Section 34(2)(d) allows a complaint where the complainant “resides or personally works for gain”. A parent in Patna or Lucknow can file before the District Commission there, with the Kota coaching centre as the opposite party. Filing in Kota is also permitted (s.34(2)(a) and (c): where the opposite party carries on business, or where the cause of action arose). Filing near home is permitted and is usually more practical: the family does not have to travel to Kota for each date.
- Who files. Many Kota students are under 18. Where the consumer is a minor, the “complainant” is the parent or legal guardian (s.2(5)(vii)). The parent who paid the fee is usually a consumer in their own right: s.2(7)(ii) covers the person who hires a service for consideration, and the student is the beneficiary. A student who is 18 or older can file in their own name.
- Distance. A complaint can be filed electronically (proviso to s.35(1)); in practice that is the e-Jagriti portal. The Act lets the Commission allow a hearing through video conferencing on an application showing sufficient cause (proviso to s.38(6)), and e-Jagriti supports virtual hearings. Whether a particular hearing happens online is for the Commission to decide.
Once the Rajasthan Act is in force, the District Committee chaired by the District Magistrate becomes a second, local route for refund directions (s.6(2)(i)).
FAQ (FAQPage schema)
Can I get my coaching fee back if I leave midway? Possibly, for the unused period. The Rajasthan Act (once in force) and the Ministry’s guidelines say pro-rata within ten days. The outcome depends on your facts.
Is “fees once paid are non-refundable” legally binding? Not automatically. Section 2(46)(vi) targets unreasonable conditions, and commissions have treated blanket no-refund clauses as one-sided. Only a State or National Commission can formally declare the term void.
Who can file — the parent or the student? The parent who paid is a consumer under s.2(7)(ii) and can file. If the student is under 18, the complaint is filed by the parent or legal guardian (s.2(5)(vii)). A student who is 18 or older can file as the beneficiary of the service.
Do I have to file in Kota? No. Section 34(2)(d) allows filing where the complainant resides or personally works for gain; for most outstation families that is their home district. Filing in Kota is also permitted.
Is there a deadline? Two years from the cause of action (s.69).
Law relied on: Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — ss. 2(5)(vii), 2(7), 2(42), 2(46), 34(2), 35(1) proviso, 38(6) proviso, 39(1), 47(1)(a)(ii), 49(2), 69; Consumer Protection (Jurisdiction of the District Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission) Rules, 2021; Rajasthan Coaching Centres (Control and Regulation) Act, 2025 — ss. 1(3), 2(d), 6(2)(i), 13(4); Ministry of Education, Guidelines for Regulation of Coaching Centre, 2024; CCPA Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisement in Coaching Sector, 2024, cl. 3(a); Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, (2010) 11 SCC 159; Manu Solanki v. Vinayaka Mission University (NCDRC, 20.01.2020; SC, CA 3504/2020, pending); Sehgal School of Competition v. Dalbir Singh, (2009) 3 CPJ 33 (NC); FIIT JEE Ltd. v. Minathi Rath (NCDRC, 14.11.2011).
This is general legal awareness, not legal advice. Legal outcomes depend on facts, documents, law, forum, evidence, limitation and judicial discretion — no outcome is guaranteed. Consult a qualified advocate on your own facts.
Adv. Prakhar Gupta — enrolled with the Bar Council of Rajasthan, Enrolment No. R/2196/2020. This page shares legal awareness/education only; it is not advertisement or solicitation of work.
Parts of this content (images/voice/summary) were created or edited using AI tools.
The appeal in Manu Solanki v. Vinayaka Mission University is pending before the Supreme Court. Nothing here predicts or comments on its outcome.