The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has upheld a plea filed by Lokhandwala resident Shamin Ali Shaikh against Geebee Education Pvt. Limited, ordering the firm to refund fees and pay additional compensation for adopting unfair trade practices. The firm was directed to refund ₹30,000 in course fees, pay ₹30,000 for mental agony caused to the complainant, and ₹15,000 towards litigation costs.
Shaikh initially approached the District Consumer Commission in 2017, alleging deficiency in service after enrolling her son in a coaching course offered by Geebee Education to prepare for the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT), a standardized test widely used for college admissions in the United States and across the world at undergraduate level.
Shaikh had paid ₹30,000 for the course, but her son, who joined late, missed initial sessions. Despite repeated requests, the firm failed to provide adequate support, including makeup classes, prompting her son to discontinue the course.
The District Commission ruled in Shaikh’s favor, finding Geebee Education guilty of deficiency in service and ordering a refund and compensation. However, Shaikh appealed to the State Commission, arguing that the compensation awarded by the district body was insufficient given the prolonged nature of the case and the inconvenience suffered.
In its defense, Geebee Education alleged that Shaikh’s son had allegedly posted defamatory content on its social media platforms, attempting to coerce the firm into meeting the complainant’s demands. The firm dismissed the allegations of unfair trade practices and deficiency in service, claiming the course fee was non-refundable as per its terms and conditions.
After reviewing the case, the State Commission upheld the District Commission’s findings, stating, “The education firm’s failure to accommodate the missed sessions and refusal to refund fees under the pretext that ‘the payment made will not be refunded’ constitutes deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.”
The commission also noted that Shaikh incurred significant litigation costs due to the prolonged nature of the case and awarded an additional ₹15,000 for this expense.
