KRINSHBHAN YADAV Vs. GANDHI VOCATIONAL COLLEGE THROUGH DIRECTOR

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 23.12.2011 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission ') in FA No. 458/2009, "Gandhi Vocational College and Anr. versus Krinshbhan Yadav, " vide which while allowing appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Guna, M.P. was set aside and the complaint was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant, Krinshbhan Yadav took admission in "Bachelor of Computer Applications " course in respondent no.1 college, which was affiliated to respondent no.2, Jeevaji University, Gwalior. It has been alleged that there were six semesters for the said course, but the respondents had not given him the marks -sheet for the third semester, although he has been declared pass. In the absence of the degree, he is unable to apply for a job also. The respondents have thus committed deficiency in service by not giving him the marks -sheet for the third semester. The petitioner/complainant filed a consumer complaint no. 196/2008 which was allowed by the District Forum on 20.01.2009 and the respondents were directed to pay Rs.25,000/ - to the complainant jointly and severally. They were also asked to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/ - to the consumer welfare fund. An appeal against this order was allowed by the State Commission which held that the respondent was not a consumer, because the University while discharging the statutory functions of conducting the examinations, does not render service and, hence, the complainant could not seek redressal under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) WE have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. It has been admitted by the petitioner that copy of the order was received by his counsel on 2.1.2012, i.e., after about 10 days of passing of impugned order dated 23.12.2011. The petitioner has not been able to give any convincing explanation as to why he waited for such a long time to contact his Advocate and file the present revision petition. In the application for condonation of delay, the column, 'number of days ' has been left blank. Moreover, the petition was submitted on 18.07.2012, whereas as per the version of the petitioner, the duplicate certified copy also was received by him on 09.05.12. No reasons have been given to explain the further delay of more than two months after receiving the duplicate copy of the order. It is clear, therefore, that a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the revision petition is not forthcoming.