NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/690/2010

MAHENDRA KUMAR MAURYA - Complainant(s)

Versus

AVADH UNIVERSITY & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH

19 Mar 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 05 Feb 2010

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/690/2010
(Against the Order dated 06/02/2009 in Appeal No. 21/1994 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)
1. MAHENDRA KUMAR MAURYAResident of Village - Shahjahanpur, Pargana - Haveli Avadah, P.O.- Janaura, Tehsil - SadarFaizabadU.P. ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. AVADH UNIVERSITY & ANR.Through its RegistrarFaizabadU.P.2. KAMTA PRASAD SUNDERLAL SAKET MAHAVIDYALAYA, AYODHYAThrough its PrincipalFaizabadU.P. ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 19 Mar 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

In this revision filed against the order dated 06.02.2009 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P., Lucknow allowing appeal against the order dated 16.12.1993 of a District Forum, there is delay of 185 days in filing revision. In para 3 of the condonation application, it is alleged that the copy of the order dated 06.02.2009 was received on 06.05.2009. In para 4 it is further alleged that petitioner had been suffering from severe jaundice from 25.04.2009 was admitted in hospital on 28.04.2009 and was advised rest for 6 months. In para 5, it is stated that after recovering from illness, the petitioner started process for filing revision. In para 7, it is alleged that the petitioner was given   wrong legal advice for not filing the revision. It is not stated either in para 4 or any other para of the application that during this entire period the petitioner was prevented even approaching the counsel to file revision petition. In our view, the delay in question has not been satisfactory explained by the petitioner. 
On merits, it may be seen that the college - OP No.2 was exonerated by the District Forum and petitioner had not filed any appeal against the exoneration of college. In para 2 of the order under challenge, the State Commission had rightly held that the university - OP No.1 could not be held deficient in service in not permitting the petitioner to appear in BA Part-2 examination who has failed in three subjects in BA Part-1 examination. There is no illegality or the judicial error in the order passed by the fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.
 


......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................JR.K. BATTAMEMBER