CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES AND WORLD WIDE IMMIGRATION CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. (WWICS) Vs. EKTA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 19.03.2013 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') by which FA No. 39/2012 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 04.08.2011 passed by District Forum was dismissed on the ground that there was a delay of 135 days in filing the said appeal. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Ekta Sharma filed a consumer complaint number 703/2006 before the District Forum, saying that she had taken admission in the "Bachelor of Nursing" degree course being run by the petitioners with effect from 1.11.2004, and that she deposited the necessary fee amounting to Rs. 2,82,000/ - with the petitioners, out of which Rs. 2,44,000/ - had been raised as loan from the Bank. She was told later on that she was not eligible for the said course. The District Forum in their order dated 4.08.2011 directed the petitioners/OPs to refund 50% of the fee/charges paid/deposited by the complainant within one month of the receipt of the order. An appeal filed by the petitioners/OPs against this order, was dismissed vide impugned order by the State Commission, saying that the same had been filed after a delay of 135 days. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) AT the time of admission hearing before us, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the order passed by the District Forum was dated 04.08.2011, but they had shifted their working place from Mohali, Punjab to New Delhi in the year 2010 by virtue of letter dated 17.7.2010. The order, in question, had been received by them on 2.12.2011 and the appeal was filed before the State Commission on 17.01.2012. They had explained the reasons for delay but the State Commission wrongly relied upon some orders quoted in the body of the impugned order.

(3.) THE complaint, in question, was moved before the District Forum in the year 2006 and it was decided by the District Forum vide order dated 4.08.2011. In case, the petitioners had moved their place of work in the year 2010, it was their bound duty to inform the court about their new place of work. The District Forum, therefore, cannot be put to blame that they sent the copy of the order, in question, to a wrong address. Moreover the case has been contested by the petitioners before the District Forum and they are supposed to be in the knowledge of the order passed by the District Forum. The State Commission have rightly observed in their order that it was a contested case and the petitioners were regularly appearing before the District Forum. It is clear, therefore, that the petitioners have not been able to give any cogent and convincing explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. As per their own version, they received copy of the order on 2.12.2011 but the appeal was filed on 17.1.2012, i.e., after another period of one and a half month, for which they have not been able to give any explanation.