EdTech firm told to refund over ₹84,000 after ‘100% placement guarantee’ fails

A Bengaluru-based EdTech company has been directed to refund ₹84,960 to an MBA graduate after a Punjab consumer commission found that it failed to establish that the “100% guaranteed placement” it advertised with an AI product management course had actually been delivered.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurdaspur, also directed Eduinx Education Services Private Limited to pay ₹10,000 as compensation for mental tension and harassment and ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses.

The order was passed by Commission President Lalit Mohan Dogra and Member Bhagwan Singh Matharu on a complaint filed by Batala resident Harish Malhotra.

MBA graduate paid ₹84,960 for six-month course

Malhotra, an MBA graduate, was seeking employment aligned with his qualifications and career aspirations when he came across an Eduinx advertisement on July 9, 2025.

The programme was promoted with a “100% guaranteed placement” claim. Relying on the representation, Malhotra enrolled on July 12, 2025, in a six-month online course in AI in Product Management and paid ₹84,960 through a credit card.

He completed the training and received a course completion certificate on November 24, 2025.

However, according to his complaint, the promised placement never materialised despite repeated follow-ups with the company.

Company says it provided placement assistance

Eduinx disputed the allegations and maintained that it had fulfilled its obligations under its placement-support framework.

The company argued that it was an upskilling and career-support platform rather than an appointing authority. It said the “100% Placement Guarantee” related to career preparation, profile optimisation and employer outreach, while the final decision to hire rested with prospective employers.

The company also relied on WhatsApp conversations to show that recruitment opportunities had been communicated to Malhotra.

These included opportunities in Mumbai, Bengaluru and Hyderabad. Eduinx argued that Malhotra had expressed a preference for jobs in Gurugram or Delhi-NCR and had declined opportunities outside those locations.

Company also cites interview performance

The company further argued that selection ultimately depended on the candidate’s performance during interviews.

It claimed that Malhotra had participated in recruitment processes involving companies including Cognizant, Capgemini and Innomick.

Eduinx maintained that it could not compel an independent employer to appoint a candidate and that failure to secure employment could not, by itself, amount to deficiency in service.

Commission examines the ‘100% placement’ promise

The commission distinguished between ordinary placement assistance and a service specifically marketed as carrying a “100% guaranteed placement” promise.

It observed that a service provider cannot force an independent employer to select a candidate. However, it said the central issue was whether Eduinx had fulfilled the placement commitment it had made while advertising the programme and accepting the consumer’s money.

The commission found that the WhatsApp conversations established that some recruitment-related activity had taken place. However, recruitment leads, screening calls and interviews could not automatically be treated as successful placement.

There was a “substantial distinction”, the commission observed, between being informed about a vacancy, participating in a recruitment process and actually securing employment.

No proof of successful placement or rejection

The commission noted that Eduinx had not produced an appointment letter, joining report, accepted offer letter or any other document showing that Malhotra had actually been placed and subsequently refused the appointment.

It also rejected the company’s reliance on the claim that Malhotra had performed poorly in interviews.

According to the commission, the company had not produced documentary evidence showing the precise nature of the alleged poor performance, interview assessments, marks or ratings given by prospective employers, or the specific reasons for rejection.

The employers who allegedly rejected Malhotra were also not examined before the commission.

The commission therefore held that a general claim about poor interview performance could not, by itself, establish that Eduinx had fulfilled its placement obligation.

Delhi-NCR preference did not prove guarantee was met

The commission also considered Eduinx’s argument that Malhotra had limited his opportunities by preferring Gurugram and Delhi-NCR.

It observed that consumers could communicate reasonable preferences regarding the location where they wanted to work.

However, the company did not satisfactorily establish that Malhotra had been clearly informed before enrolment that its “100% placement guarantee” would be treated as fulfilled merely by providing any employment opportunity anywhere in India.

The Mumbai and Bengaluru opportunities cited by the company were also not shown to have resulted in definite employment offers that Malhotra had expressly rejected.

Placement claim found material to consumer’s decision

The commission held that the “100% guaranteed placement” representation was material to Malhotra’s decision to enrol, particularly because he was an MBA graduate seeking employment and had paid ₹84,960 for a professional programme carrying that promise.

The evidence, it said, demonstrated recruitment efforts by Eduinx but did not establish fulfilment of the promised result.

The commission further observed that if such a guarantee was subject to conditions such as interview performance, geographical flexibility or other requirements, those conditions needed to be clearly established and disclosed when the service was sold.

Commission finds deficiency in service and unfair trade practice

Applying the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the commission held that failure to establish fulfilment of the placement commitment amounted to a shortcoming in the performance of the service purchased by the complainant.

It also held that advertising a “100% guaranteed placement” and subsequently failing to establish fulfilment of that representation amounted to an unfair trade practice in the circumstances of the case.

The commission clarified that its order did not mean an independent employer could be compelled to hire a candidate. Its findings concerned the obligations and conduct of the service provider that had made the placement representation.

₹6 lakh compensation claim rejected

Malhotra had sought ₹6 lakh as compensation for mental agony, harassment, financial loss and loss of career continuity, along with ₹30,000 towards litigation expenses.

The commission did not allow the ₹6 lakh compensation claim, noting that sufficient documentary evidence had not been produced to establish the precise quantum of financial loss or a direct causal connection.

Instead, it awarded ₹10,000 for mental tension and harassment and ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses.

Eduinx ordered to refund ₹84,960 within 45 days

The complaint was partly allowed, with the commission directing the opposite parties to jointly and severally refund ₹84,960 to Malhotra within 45 days of receiving a copy of the order.

If the amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the refund will carry 9% annual interest from the date on which the original ₹84,960 was deposited until actual realisation.

Eduinx was also directed to pay the ₹10,000 compensation and ₹5,000 litigation expenses within the same 45-day period.