NEW DELHI: A district consumer commission in Punjab has directed a educational institution to refund Rs 84,960 to an MBA graduate after the company failed to provide the “100 percent guaranteed placement” promised while selling the course to the student. The commission also awarded Rs 10,000 compensation and Rs 5,000 litigation costs in an order passed on September 16, 2026.
Why did the consumer approach the commission?
According to the commission order, Harish Malhotra, an MBA graduate, enrolled in a six-month online training programme in AI in product management after seeing Eduinx Education Services Private Limited advertisement promising “100 percent guaranteed placement”. He paid Rs 84,960 through a credit card on July 12, 2025.The complainant completed the course and received a certificate on November 24, 2025. He alleged that despite repeated follow-ups, the company failed to provide the promised placement and kept giving revised timelines. He then approached the Gurdaspur district consumer commission seeking a refund of the course fee, along with compensation for mental agony, harassment, financial loss and loss of career continuity.He also claimed that he remained unemployed for over 10 months and sought Rs 6 lakh as compensation and Rs 30,000 towards litigation expenses.However, the Eduinx denied the allegations and said it was an upskilling and career-support platform, not an appointing authority. It argued that the “100 percent placement guarantee” referred to career preparation, profile optimisation and employer outreach, while final selection depended on employers.The company further claimed that the complainant had participated in recruitment processes involving companies including Cognizant, Capgemini and Innomick. It claimed he had declined job opportunities in Mumbai, Bengaluru and Hyderabad because he preferred Gurugram or Delhi-NCR.
Why did the commission hold Eduinx responsible?
The bench comprising President Lalit Mohan Dogra and member B S Matharu observed that the company had accepted Rs 84,960 after promising that the programme carried a 100 percent placement guarantee. The bench noted that while Eduinx had shown evidence of recruitment efforts, it had not established that the promised placement commitment was fulfilled.The commission said there was a difference between offering interview opportunities and providing the placement that had been represented to the consumer.“The opposite parties cannot simultaneously rely upon the expression “100 percent placement guarantee” to induce a consumer to purchase the programme and, after the consumer has paid the consideration, interpret the same merely as a promise to forward his profile to employers and arrange interviews. If the service was in fact limited to providing interview opportunities and recruitment assistance, that limitation ought to have been clearly and prominently disclosed to the complainant at the time of enrolment,” the commission noted.The commission also rejected the company’s argument that the complainant’s interview performance was responsible for the failure to secure a job. It noted that Eduinx had not produced interview assessments, ratings or communications from the employers showing that he was rejected on the basis of his performance.The bench said the WhatsApp conversations showed that some job opportunities had been communicated to Malhotra, but these did not amount to a definite employment offer or successful placement.“A mere suggestion of a vacancy cannot be equated with an employment offer as promised. Nor can a recruitment lead, screening call or interview be treated as equivalent to successful placement. Therefore, even after taking the WhatsApp conversations at their face value, the evidence falls short of establishing that the opposite parties fulfilled the substantive placement representation,” the commission further noted.The commission held that the failure to fulfil the placement commitment amounted to deficiency in service. It also held that the representation of “100 percent guaranteed placement”, without sufficiently clear conditions showing that it did not actually assure placement, amounted to an unfair trade practice.“If the opposite parties wished to make the guarantee conditional upon the complainant’s performance in interviews, they were required to establish the existence and applicability of such conditions. A general assertion made after the dispute arose cannot substitute for a clear contractual qualification disclosed at the time of sale of the service. Accordingly, we hold that the opposite parties have failed to establish that the placement commitment was fulfilled and that such failure constitutes a shortcoming in the manner of performance of the service hired by the complainant” the commission concluded.The commission, however, rejected Malhotra’s claim for Rs 6 lakh towards financial loss and loss of career continuity, saying there was insufficient documentary evidence to establish the exact amount and direct connection with the company’s service.
What did the commission order?
The Gurdaspur district consumer commission directed Eduinx Education Services Pvt Ltd to:
- Refund Rs 84,960 to Malhotra.
- Pay Rs 10,000 as compensation for mental tension and harassment.
- Pay Rs 5,000 towards litigation expenses.
- Make the payments jointly and severally within 45 days of receiving a copy of the order.
- Pay 9 percent annual interest on the Rs 84,960 refund from the date of deposit until actual realisation if the order is not complied with within 45 days.
