ORAL ORDER
Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member
There is alleged delay of 111 days on the part of the Applicant/Appellant to prefer the appeal and hence, this application for condonation of delay.
[2] Heard Adv. Santosh Patil on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant and Adv. Kunal J. Rane on behalf of the Non-Applicant/Respondent.
[3] Learned Counsel for the Non-Applicant/Respondent submitted that he wants to argue on the basis of statements made in the application for condonation of delay itself instead of filing a written reply to it.
[4] One could see that what-ever stated in the application for condonation of delay, particularly paragraph (02) to (08) thereof, per-se, may not offer any sufficient and satisfactory reasons to condone the delay. However, one more submission made on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant is about the legality of the order since according to the Learned Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant, the ‘service provider’ in this complaint would be the institute, who is liable to refund the fees and not one of its officials, namely – the Principal of the institute. Prima-facie, we find merit in this submission which goes to the root of the matter. A principal of the institute is a separate and distinct ‘person’ within the meaning of Section-2(1)(m) of the Act and his duties and obligations are the one which are defined by the institute where he is the principal and his failure to discharge those duties and obligations is to be assessed on that basis vis-à-vis deficiency in service on his part. Institute is a separate distinct legal entity within the meaning of Section-2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Prima-facie it is the institute who is responsible for refund of fees on cancellation of admission as per the rules. Under the circumstances, to advance substantial justice it is necessary to condone the delay and hear the parties on merit covering this issue. Useful reference on the point can be made to the decision of Supreme Court in the matters of M. K. Prasad Vs. P. Arumugam ~ 2001-(6)-SCC-176 and also the decision in the matter of Baburao Deorao Wankhede Vs. Sewa Sahakari Sanstha and Anr. ~ 1989-Mah.L.R.-1144.
For the reasons stated above, we find that there are sufficient reasons to condone the delay and holding accordingly, pass the following order:-
ORDER
Miscellaneous Application No.24 of 2013, seeking condonation of delay in filing Appeal No.39 of 2013 is hereby allowed. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal stands condoned subject to payment of costs of `5,000/- payable by the Applicant/Appellant to the Non-Applicant/Respondent. Costs shall be paid within a period of four weeks from today (since the order is passed in presence of both the parties) and failing which without any further reference to the State Commission, the application for condonation of delay shall automatically stands dismissed.
Pronounced and dictated on 22nd August, 2013
