D.J. College Of Engineering & Technology vs Kumari Neha Verma

This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Actâ€), by an Engineering College, namely,

D.J. College of Engineering & Technology, Opposite Party No.1 in the Complaint under the Act, calls in question the legality and correctness of the

order dated 23.02.2017, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow (for short “the State Commissionâ€) in

Appeal No. 1817 of 2010. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioner herein, for non-

prosecution, as on a number of consecutive dates there was no representation on its behalf.

The Appeal had been preferred by the Petitioner herein against the order dated 20.09.2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal

Forum, Ghaziabad (for short “the District Forumâ€) in Complaint Case No. 301 of 2006. By the said order, while accepting the Complaint,

preferred by Respondent herein, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Petitioner College and its Director, the

Opposite Parties in the Complaint, in issuing false advertisement, projecting that it had academic recognition from U.P. Technical University,

Lucknow, and admitting students to impart education without having the said recognition, on account of which the Complainant could not take

examination, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of 4,00,000/- to the Complainant for wasting her one year, 60,000/-towards

hostel fee, books etc. and 5,000/- as litigation costs.

Attracted by the advertisement issued by the Petitioner/Engineering College, on 13.09.2005 the Complainant took admission in the Electronic &

Communication Engineering Course in the said College. She deposited a total sum of 50,000/- for the said course. In addition thereto, a sum of

60,000/- was also spent by her towards hostel fee, books etc. After taking admission, at the end of the year she learnt that the College had no

recognition from U.P. Technical University, with the result that she could not take the final examination. Faced with the said situation, the College

voluntarily refunded the afore-stated fee of 50,000/- to the Complainant. However, having lost one precious academic year, the Complainant filed the

Complaint before the District Forum, praying for the reliefs mentioned therein, in which the afore-stated relief was granted to the Complainant.

Its Appeal having been dismissed on the afore-stated ground, the Petitioner is before us.

It is pointed out by the office that this Revision Petition is barred by limitation, in as much as there is delay of 120 days in filing the same. An

application, praying for condonation of said delay, has been filed along with the Revision Petition. In paragraph no.3 of the said application, the

Petitioner has furnished the following explanation for the delay:

“3. That the registry of this Hon’ble Commission has reported a delay of 120 days. It is submitted that the delay caused in filing the present

revision petition is neither deliberate nor intentional and the same was beyond the control of the petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned order was

passed on 23.02.2017, the said appeal was dismissed in default due to non-appearance of the petitioner. Thereafter, as it appears that free copy was

issued on 24.07.2017, but it is most respectfully submitted that the petitioner was not aware about the dismissal of the appeal as well as he never

received any order from the Hon’ble State Commission. Only in the month of January, 2018, the petitioner received an execution notice from

concerned Ld. District Forum, then only the petitioner came to know about the dismissal of present appeal. Therefore the enquired and obtained

certified copy and preferred to file the present Revision Petition, according to the certified copy was received on 31.01.2018, there is no delay in filing

the present revision petition as the date of knowledge is in the month of January, 2018.â€​

We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner on the question of delay.

We are not at all satisfied with the afore-extracted explanation. It was the Petitioner who had filed the Appeal before the State Commission and,

therefore, it was upon it to ensure that the same was pursued diligently. However, it is evident from the impugned order, passed on 23.02.2017, that

there was no representation on its behalf on a number of occasions. Under the given circumstances, the State Commission was left with no other

option except to dismiss the Appeal for non-prosecution. Having faced two adverse orders, one on merits and other on account of its non-seriousness

towards the matter, even at the third stage the Petitioner, an educational institution, could have pursued these proceedings with some alacrity. Alas, it

was not to be. Evidently, the Petitioner is not much concerned with the merits of its case but is interested only in protracting the matter on one pretext

or the other. Because of the said reason, after filing of the Appeal, neither there was any representation before the State Commission on its behalf nor

it kept a track of developments taking place in the Appeal. Further, a perusal of the certified copy of the impugned order, placed on record, reveals

that “free certified copy†had been issued to the Petitioner on 24.07.2017, and, in the absence of any supporting documentary evidence, there is

no reason to believe that the same was not received by the Petitioner. Yet, the Petitioner did not take any action in the matter for about six months.

It was only in January, 2018, on receipt of notice in the Execution proceedings, initiated by the Complainant for enforcement of the order passed in her

favour by the District Forum, as far back as in the year 2010, that the Petitioner came out of its deep slumber and tried to ascertain the status of its

Appeal filed before the State Commission. In this view of the matter, we are convinced that the explanation furnished for the afore-noted inordinate

delay is nothing but an unholy attempt to somehow protract the matter. The present state of affairs is Petitioner’s own making and does not

deserve any indulgence on the strength of explanation furnished by it. In any case, the fact remains that there is an inordinate delay of 120 days in

filing the present Revision Petition, over and above the limited period of 90 days, as provided under Regulation-14 of the Consumer Protection

Regulations, 2005, for which delay no sufficient cause has been made out warranting its consideration.

Bearing in mind the afore-stated facts and the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial

Development Authority [(2011) 14 SCC 578] to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, it must be borne in mind that

entertainment of belated Appeals and Revisions in consumer matters after the expiry of the special period of limitation, prescribed under the Act,

defeats the very object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes, we are not inclined to condone the afore-stated delay in filing the present

Revision Petition and subject to the Complainant to further harassment.

Accordingly, application seeking condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently the Revision Petition is dismissed in limine on the short ground of

limitation.