SANT PRASAD SINGH Vs. ASHOK EDUCATION CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.7.2009 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State Mumbai in F.A. No.1540 of 2007 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.9.2007 passed by the District Forum, Thane in consumer complaint No.338 of 2006 by which the District Forum had dismissed the consumer complaint of the petitioner. Thus the State Commission also dismissed the consumer complaint filed by the petitioner while dismissing the appeal.

(2.) THERE is a delay of one year (274 days as per Registry 's report) in filing this revision petition. The petitioner has, therefore, filed an application for condonation of delay. In support of his request for condonation, the petitioner has stated in the application that the impugned order dated 14.7.2009 was received by the petitioner on 31.7.2009 after which the petitioner was suffering from anxiety and restlessness and thus was under medical treatment from 2.8.2009 till 8.7.2010. The petitioner has enclosed copies of record of his treatment at Shaila Welfare Trust, which is a free Chairtable Homeopathic Dispensary. The record indicates his ailment as anxiety with restlessness and loss of sleep for which the doctor has prescribed certain homeopathy medicines but there is no indication or medical certificate to the effect that during the period of his treatment from 2.8.2009 to 8.7.2010 by Dr. S.R. Khare the petitioner was unable to or prevented from taking necessary action for filing the revision petition on account of his being unwell and bedridden. Another discharge certificate from ESIS hospital dated 14.6.2004 has also been filed by the petitioner. However, this discharge certificate does not cover the period in question. In the circumstances, the reason of his medical treatment being given in support of condonation of delay cannot be accepted as sufficient cause for condonation of delay in question. We are, therefore, not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of one year (274 days according to the Registry).

(3.) WE have heard the petitioner who has appeared in person. His only contention is that the respondent college cheated him because the B.Ed. course for which his niece had taken admission into the college is not a recognized course and hence the degree for the course is of no use to her in getting a government job. According to him, the degree of B.Ed. course issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is not a valid degree and as such there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondent college. The Fora below failed to appreciate this aspect and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside.