Hyderabad: Consumer panel fines RC Reddy Study Circle ₹36,240 for holding classes in cellar

Hyderabad: Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III has directed RC Reddy Study Circle to refund ₹21,240 (80% of the fee) with 12% interest to a student for holding classes in the cellar.

The commission also asked the institute to pay ₹5,000 towards litigation costs and deposit ₹10,000 in the Consumer Legal Aid account.

Student alleges overcrowding, noise pollution

The complainant, B. Kumar Swamy from Luxettipet in Mancherial district, enrolled in a Group-II coaching programme at RC Reddy Study Circle on November 11, 2024, after paying a fee of ₹26,550.

He later found that classes were being conducted in a cellar at church premises in Himayatnagar (ACTC Study Centre).

According to the complaint, nearly 300 students were accommodated in a hall with a capacity of only 60–80 persons, with eight speakers installed for instruction.

The student alleged that constant noise from church prayers and loudspeakers caused severe disturbance, leading to ear-related issues and suffocation-like conditions.

Refund request ignored

Kumar Swamy stated that he informed the institute via email on December 13, 2024, of his intention to discontinue the course, to which the institute responded, “OK, sir.” However, when he sought a fee refund on December 18, there was no response.

He later issued a legal notice on January 2, 2025. Despite assurances from the institute to resolve the issue, no action was taken, prompting him to approach the consumer commission.

Institute denies allegations

In its defence, the coaching institute asserted that it has been offering training for over 30 years and that this was its first complaint.

It denied conducting classes in a church cellar, stating that sessions were held in a conference hall with adequate infrastructure.

The institute argued that the venue could accommodate 300 students and had four entry points and eight speakers as required. It also alleged that the complaint was filed with malicious intent.

Commission rules in favour of student

After examining the case, the commission noted that the institute itself admitted to having around 300 students in a single classroom.

Invoking the beneficial nature of consumer protection laws, the commission accepted the student’s claims of overcrowding, noise pollution, and discomfort, even in the absence of medical evidence.

Citing Supreme Court rulings, the commission held that “non-refundable” clauses in such cases are not enforceable and directed the institute to refund the fee with interest and pay compensation.