JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.       The complainant/respondent filed a complaint before the concerned District Forum, stating therein that after paying the requisite fee to the opposite party No.1 he had appeared in the trade test held in July, 2010 and appeared in all the examinations but his result had not been published by the opposite parties. Ultimately the result came to be published by the petitioner/opposite party No.2 on 16-07-2012. The complainant was declared failed in the aforesaid examination. Claiming that on account of the delay in publication of result his career was spoiled and he could not pursue higher studies, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint seeking compensation to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- besides cost of litigation.

2.       The complaint was resisted by the petitioner/opposite party No.2. However, in the reply it was not disputed that the result of the examination in which the complainant had appeared was declared after about two years. The opposite party No.2/petitioner also claimed that a complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was not maintainable against it since no services were being rendered by it to the complainant. The District Forum vide its order dated           10-12-2013 directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of delay in publication of the result.

3.       Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner/opposite party No.2 approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Since there was a delay of 68 days in filing the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal was also filed. The said application and consequently the appeal having been dismissed by the State Commission vide impugned order 20-06-2014, the petitioner/opposite party No.2-Secretary, State Council for Technical Education and Vocational Training, Odisha is before us by way of this revision petition.

4.       A perusal of the application which the petitioner had filed before the State Commission seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, to the extent it is relevant reads as under:

          “That the order was passed on 10-12-2013 and the appeal could have been filed but the petitioner, after approval of higher authorities and after consultation with the lawyer at Cuttack decided to challenge the order of the learned District Forum, the copy of the order on 10-12-2013 was obtained and after consultation with the advocate as well as higher authority, appeal was prepared and filed on 26-03-2014 after it being made ready. Hence, the delay of 60 days was caused due to official process and above reasons.

5.       It would be seen from a perusal of the aforesaid application that no attempt was made by the petitioner to explain each and every day’s delay after the period prescribed for filing appeal against the order of the District Forum had expired. The petitioner vaguely alleged that though appeal could have been filed, it was decided after approval of higher authorities and consultation with lawyers to challenge the order of the District Forum and then appeal was preferred and filed on 26-03-2014. The application does not disclose on which date the copy of the order of the District Forum dated 10-12-2013 was made available to the petitioner. The application does not disclose when the process of examination of the order of the District Forum started in the office of the petitioner and when the said process was completed. The application does not disclose, the periods during which the file remained with a particular officer. It does not disclose the date on which the competent authority decided to challenge the order of the District Forum. The application does not disclose when the advocate was contacted for the purpose of filing the appeal and when the necessary material in this regard was provided to him. Thus, the approach adopted by the petitioner, while seeking condonation of delay of 68 days in filing the appeal, to say the least, was only casual and no sincere attempt was made to convince the State Commission that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. In these circumstances, we find no good reason to interfere with the view taken by the State Commission. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the issue of law involved in the matter is kept open.