MOHALI: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Plutus IAS Academy and its associate company Argasia Education Pvt Ltd to refund ₹55,000 each to two UPSC aspirants after finding that the coaching institute failed to provide regular classes through the experienced and permanent faculty it had promised.
The commission also directed the two companies to pay ₹15,000 each to the complainants towards compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses.
In addition, the companies have been directed to pay 9% annual interest on the ₹55,000 refund amount payable to each complainant, calculated from the date of filing of the complaints — February 18, 2026 — until the date of payment.
Both companies were held jointly and severally liable for the amounts awarded by the commission.
Who Filed the Complaints?
The complaints were filed by Kunwarjeet Sandhu and Eshneet Kaur, residents of Phase-6, Mohali.
Both women had enrolled for UPSC coaching at the Chandigarh branch of Plutus IAS Academy on July 29, 2024.
Read Also: UPSC ESE 2027 Registration Closes Today; Check 480 Vacancies, Application Fee and Exam Dates
According to their complaints, they paid ₹55,000 each for the coaching course against a discounted total course fee of nearly ₹2 lakh.
The aspirants said they opted for the academy after being represented that the coaching would be provided by experienced, qualified and permanent faculty members.
They subsequently alleged that the services provided by the institute did not match those representations.
Students Alleged Frequent Faculty Changes and Merged Classes
According to the complaints, the academy repeatedly merged the complainants’ classes with other batches, including batches comprising postgraduate and more experienced students.
The students also alleged that teachers were changed frequently, resulting in a lack of continuity in their preparation.
They claimed that UPSC preparation requires a structured and consistent academic environment and that the frequent changes in faculty and class composition adversely affected their studies.
The students further stated that they repeatedly raised their concerns with the management but did not receive an effective corrective response.
As their concerns continued, they approached the management along with other students and sought refunds.
Refund Request Signed by 14 Students
The dispute subsequently moved beyond the two complainants.
A written refund request dated October 22, 2024, was submitted to the academy and was signed by 14 students, including Sandhu and Kaur.
The complainants relied on the document to show that concerns regarding the quality and regularity of classes were not restricted to their individual experiences.
The commission also examined WhatsApp communications exchanged among the students and noted that the chats reflected repeated requests for improvement in the quality and regularity of the classes.
Academy Initially Agreed to Refund ₹40,000
The refund dispute took another turn after the academy initially agreed to return a substantial portion of the course fee.
According to an email dated November 1, 2024, the academy agreed to refund ₹40,000 each, after deducting ₹15,000 as service charges from the amount paid by each student.
The students were subsequently informed that officials from Delhi would visit the Chandigarh branch on November 30, 2024, to discuss issues raised by students, including the refund requests.
However, the refund proposal later changed.
Refund Offer Was Later Reduced to ₹10,000
In an email dated January 3, 2025, the academy proposed making further deductions from the amount payable to the students.
It cited deductions of ₹45,000 towards registration and portal access, study material and offline charges.
Under the revised proposal, the students would receive only ₹10,000 each as refund.
The consumer commission took note of the difference between the two communications.
It observed that the academy’s later proposal was inconsistent with its earlier communication of November 1, 2024, under which it had agreed to refund ₹40,000 to each student after deducting ₹15,000 as service charges.
What Did the Consumer Commission Find?
The students produced several documents in support of their complaints, including the academy’s prospectus, fee invoices, refund request, emails and WhatsApp communications exchanged among students.
The commission examined these materials while considering whether the services provided by the academy matched the representations made to the students at the time of enrolment.
It noted that the WhatsApp conversations showed students repeatedly raising concerns regarding the quality and regularity of classes.
The commission also attached significance to the refund request carrying the signatures of 14 students, observing that the issue was not confined to an isolated complaint by a single student.
Commission Says UPSC Preparation Requires Continuity
The commission observed that preparation for a competitive examination such as the UPSC Civil Services Examination requires continuity, regularity and guidance from qualified faculty.
It held that the academy had failed to provide coaching in the manner in which its services had been represented to the students.
According to the commission, the failure to provide regular and consistent faculty, coupled with the subsequent handling of the students’ refund requests, amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The finding resulted in the commission partly allowing the complaints filed by the two aspirants.
Plutus IAS Academy Proceeded Ex Parte
During the proceedings, Plutus IAS Academy did not appear despite being served.
The commission therefore proceeded against the academy ex parte on May 29, 2026.
Its associate company, Argasia Education Pvt Ltd, appeared before the commission but failed to file its written version within the prescribed 45-day period.
Consequently, its right to file the written version was struck off on July 14, 2026.
With the respondents failing to effectively rebut the evidence placed before it, the commission treated the students’ evidence as unrebutted while deciding the complaints.
₹55,000 Refund Plus Compensation and Interest
The commission ultimately directed Plutus IAS Academy and Argasia Education Pvt Ltd to refund ₹55,000 each to Kunwarjeet Sandhu and Eshneet Kaur.
The companies were also directed to pay ₹15,000 each towards compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.
The refund amount will additionally carry 9% annual interest from February 18, 2026, the date on which the complaints were filed, until the amount is actually paid.
The liability of the two companies was held to be joint and several, meaning the complainants can enforce the awarded amount against either or both of the parties in accordance with the order.
Orders Passed by Consumer Commission
The orders were passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission comprising President S.K. Aggarwal and Member Paramjeet Kaur.
The commission’s decision provides relief to the two UPSC aspirants after their complaints alleged that the coaching services they received did not correspond with the representations made by the academy regarding faculty and the manner of instruction.
The case also highlights the importance of representations made by private coaching institutes regarding faculty, course delivery and academic support, particularly where students make substantial financial commitments for competitive-examination preparation.
Read also: UPSC at 100: Applications Rise Over 100-Fold as Women’s Representation Expands
