Petitioner was the opposite party no. 2 before the District Forum where the first respondent had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no. 2 & 3. Very briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant had appeared in Common Entrance Test 2004 conducted by the third respondent Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi. Subsequently, the complainant made an application for admission in B. Tech course under Management quota. In the entrance examination, she was placed at rank No. 8734. It was the case of the complainant that people below her rank were given admission in B. Tech course, thus, alleging deficiency in service a complaint was filed seeking compensation of Rs.1 lakh for depriving her admission in the technical course and for causing mental agony and harassment. Upon issue of notice, the matter was contested by the petitioner as well as respondent no. 2 & 3. The District Forum after hearing the parties, dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by this order the respondent no. 1 filed an appeal before the State Commission, who allowed the appeal only to the extent that the petitioner and Principal, Guru Prem Sukh Memorial College of Engineering were directed to pay Rs.25,000/- each for compensation besides Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner has filed this revision petition before us. We heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner as also the Authorised representative of the complainant at some length. After hearing the parties, we had reserved this order but when we perused the additional material brought on record by the complainant, the case was fixed for rehearing. Again we heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and the Authorised Representative of the first respondent /complainant. After perusal of material on record, we are in no doubt that the controversy revolves around the question whether the respondent /complainant appeared before the petitioner and the second respondent on 31.08.04 or not? The District Forum after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record has clearly returned the finding that the complainant did not appear for counselling on 31.08.04 before the petitioner as also did not appear for counselling on 28.08.04 before the respondent no. 2. Based on this finding, the complaint was dismissed. The State Commission has completely ignored this finding returned by the District Forum and has gone into give a twist to the argument in para 8 of its order, which reads as under:- “As regards the observation of the District Forum that due to compelling reasons best known to the appellant, his daughter had not appeared for counselling either before respondent No. 1 or before respondent no. 2 and for that reason, she could not get admission in the course of her choice for which she herself is responsible and therefore, no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of respondent no. 1 & 2, we find that there was second preference of the candidate for the B-Tech (IT) and the respondents No. 1 and 2 admitted that students having below rank than the appellant were admitted for admission in B-Tec (IT) but the appellant did not appear for counselling and as such she could not be given admission in either of the three courses.” It is by now well-appreciated that if in the first instance, any candidate who does not make the grade, is subsequently called for ‘counselling’, which forms the basis of their admission or otherwise. Even though, the complainant would like us to believe that she went to the 2nd respondent college on 28.08.94 and to the Petitioner Institute on 31.08.04, but there is no material brought on record to prove this. The plea advanced by her in the complaint was that she was present on 28.08.04 and 31.08.04 before the two institutions but since she was asked to pay Rs.3 lakh or so for getting admission under the management quota, which she could not pay, hence the complainant was deprived of the admission to the institution, whereas students placed below in rank have been given admission. There is no material on record of whatever nature that the authorities asked for such a payment. The onus was on the complainant to prove, especially when such an allegation was refuted by the opposite parties. It cannot be disputed that the students who were called for counselling and did not appear for the same, would not be eligible for admission. While it is the case of the complainant that he / she did appear for counselling but when it is firmly and clearly rebutted by the petitioner, the onus was on the complainant to prove that he / she went for counselling on the given date. There is no proof, whatever, brought on record except her own statement duly supported by affidavit, which is rebutted by the Petitioner in their written version and affidavit filed by them before the District Forum. We are unable to appreciate as to when the complainant can file a visitor’s pass for 14.10.04 (page 62 of the paper-book), why could not she file visitor’s pass of 31.08.2004; it prove the case? This must be held against the respondent. Complainant has also brought on record her request to the third opposite party for producing the material on the point of his attending the counselling under Right to Information Act, which was forwarded to the petitioner. According to the complainant, the petitioner has not given the reply to that request. We are afraid we are not the appellate authority under RTI. If requisite information has not been provided by the petitioner then the remedy lies under the provisions of RTI and not under the Consumer Protection Act. We are governed by the material and evidence brought on record by the parties. Having gone through the material we find that no evidence of whatever nature has been produced before the Consumer Fora, that the complainant attended the counselling on 31.08.04, in view of which, as per procedure for admission, the complainant cannot be compensated for her own fault. In the additional documents filed by the complainant, she has produced correspondence with Vigilance Department, Chief Minister, Delhi / Higher Education Department. This shall have not bearing on the merits of the case as no material is brought on record holding the Petitioner to be deficiency in rendering service to the complainant. We also like to mention that the complainant had also taken-up the matter with the Public Grievance Cell of N.C.T., Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi, who after enquiry did not find any irregularity on the part of the Petitioner. In the aforementioned circumstances, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the State Commission qua the petitioner alone, which is set aside and the order passed by the District Forum is restored. The complainant shall be free to proceed against Respondent No.2 as per law to recover the awarded amount(s). The revision petition stands allowed in above terms.