This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, Vijay Kumar against the order dated 21.9.2015  passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan Jaipur (for short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No.780 of 2015.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the complainant took admission in IInd Year of B.Tech in the Respondent Institute. AS per OP, the admission was given provisional but the admission was not approved and the same was cancelled.   The petitioner/complainant then preferred writ petition before the High Court of Rajasthan  The High Court passed the following order on 17.4.2009:

      “Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, respondent Institution is directed to  refund amount of Rs.11,000/- duly accepted vide  receipt (Ann.4) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of receipt (12/08/08) till actual payment whereof within one month from today; and petitioner will be at liberty to take appropriate action against respondent No.3 Institution for the loss which he has suffered, if so desired/advised by way of remedy available under law. No costs.

3.      Based on the above order, the petitioner filed Consumer Complaint No335/2013 before the District Forum,  Jaipur.  The District Forum has awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation alongwith Rs.2,500/- as cost vide its order dated 02.06.2015.

4.      Dissatisfied with the order of District Forum, the petitioner/complainant preferred an appeal bearing no.780/2015 before the State Commission which was dismissed vide order dated 21.9.2015 

5.      Hence the present revision petition.    

6.      Heard the petitioner  in person and perused the record.     Petitioner first stated the brief facts as  mentioned above and argued that the compensation awarded by the District Forum is too meagre as his one year has been wasted due to the deficiency of the OP/respondent. He stated that revision petition was filed for enhancement of the compensation.

7.      I have given a  thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the petitioner and have examined the material on record. This revision petition has been filed with delay of  602 days. The petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay. The petitioner has stated that the delay in filing the present revision petition  has occurred because the counsel for the petitioner failed to promptly inform the petitioner of the impugned order dated 21.09.2015 passed by the State Commission as the petitioner moved to Bhopal to pursue his studies. It was also stated that the petitioner being a student, was not in a position to make frequent visits to Jaipur to enquire the status of his case.  In the application, the petitioner has submitted that after completion of his course, in the last week of May, 2007, the petitioner approached the counsel and that is when he was informed of the impugned order. Thereafter, the petitioner made all efforts to obtain the certified copy and obtained the same only on 29.05.2017. It has been further submitted that after receipt of the certified copy, the petitioner made diligent efforts to file the present petition without any further delay. The petitioner prayed that since the delay was neither intentional nor wilful, it may be condoned in the interest of justice.  

8.         From the above, it is clear that the petitioner himself has not been vigilant about the proceedings and outcome of his appeal filed before the State Commission.  The Hon’ble State Commission in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has observed ;

          “It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras”.

 9.   Decision of Anshul Aggarwal (Supra) has been reiterated in CicilyKallarackalVs. Vehicle Factory, IV (2012) CPJ 1(SC) 1, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court observed;

“4. This Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has explained the scope of condonation of delay in a matter where the special Courts/ Tribunals have been constituted in order to provide expeditious remedies to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one of them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in such cases the Court must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statute (s).

  5.    In the instant case, condoning such an inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by this Court in place of the period prescribed by the Legislature for filing the special leave petition. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to condone the delay.      

6.      Hence, in the facts and circumstance of the case as explained hereinabove, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions. The same are dismissed on the ground of delay.”

10.    In R.B. RamlingamVs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, Supreme Court observed;

“We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.” 

11.    From the above referred cases, it is clear that there is a special sanctity of the periods of limitation provided in  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The reasons given in the application for condonation of delay are not sufficient for condoning inordinate delay of 602 days. Hence, the application for condonation of delay cannot be accepted and is liable to be dismissed. Consequently,  the revision petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation as well.

12.    Even coming to the merits, I find that both the fora below have given concurrent findings and complaint  of the petitioner has already been allowed by the District Forum and the order has been  upheld by  the State Commission.  The powers under the revisional jurisdiction are very limited as observed by the  Hon’ble Supreme Court  in the following two cases:

“(1)   In Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654;

        “Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous)  interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora.”

(2)        In Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors.   Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286, the following has been observed:

“23.  The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity.  In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”    

13.    From the above authoritative judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is seen that the facts cannot be  reassessed at the stage of  revision petition.  Prima facie, there seems to be no legal question that remains to be decided at the stage of revision petition in the present case. Petitioner does not have a case wherein any interference can be made by this Commission. Accordingly,  the Revision Petition No.2766 of 2017 is dismissed being barred by limitation as well as on merits.