PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER There is a delay of 22 days in filing this revision petition. 2. We have perused the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of the delay. The only reason given in the application is that the delay was neither deliberate nor willful. Since no reason has been put forth by the petitioner to justify condonation of delay, we are not inclined to condone the delay and the revision petition is liable for dismissal on this ground alone. 3. Coming to the merits, the petitioner who is the original complainant, admitted her three year old child in the respondent school by paying a sum of Rs.23,750/-. Not satisfied with the behavioral aspect of the child, the school requested the petitioner to withdraw her child. The child attended the school for a few hours over a period of 37 days. In view of the request of the school and also feeling concerned about the safety of the child in the school, the petitioner withdrew the child from the school and requested for refund of the fee paid. The school refunded only Rs.9,500/- and refused to return the balance amount of Rs.11,400/-. Alleging it as deficiency in service, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint claiming refund of the balance amount of the fee alongwith compensation etc. Vide its order dated 28.2.2006, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent/opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation with cost of Rs.1000/- within a period of one month. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the respondent filed an appeal before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (tate Commissionfor short). The State Commission vide its order dated 11.1.2011 partly allowed the appeal and modified the order of the District Forum by directing the respondent/opposite party to refund the balance amount of Rs.11,400/- within two months from the date of receipt of the order failing which, this amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of default till the date of payment. It is against this impugned order that the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant. 4. We have heard Dr. A.V. Ramana Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and perused the record. The State Commission while partly accepting the appeal of the respondent and modifying the order of the District Forum has recorded the following reasons in support of its decision: - rom the correspondence, as well as from the pleadings, it is noticed by us that both the parties were at fault, , at some point of time. The main submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party was, the parents have not picked up the child in time, resulting inconvenience, which we are unable to rule out. It is also seen from the correspondence, that the behavior of the child was not as expected by the opposite party. At the age of 3, tender age, one cannot expect that the child would behave, as matured personality and there bound to be some untempraval behavior, skirmish and naughty behavior also. It is the duty of the teacher, who is in the School to control the baby, in such a way, making the baby to realize, what is what, how to behave and how to conduct herself. There is no use, accusing a child, as if, it behaved with untenable dissatisfaction. In this view, there was some dispute between the parents and the teacher and looking the case from this angle, we have to find fault with the opposite party also. It is the duty of the parents also, to drop the child in time, pick up the child after the school time is over, even ascertaining the time, which in this case, the complainant failed, as disclosed by the correspondence, since Ex.A5 discloses t is mutually beneficial if we withdraw our child Regarding the time of the School also, there was some conflict and dispute, which should be seen from the same correspondence, since the complainant had accused the opposite party, they were unable to give any assurance, about the increase of timing of the child, as if, it was also not informed at the time of joining. The opposite party also similarly informed, as seen from Ex. A6, about the conduct of the child, stating that the child regularly displayed disrupted behaviour and was unable to relate and work co-operatively. Thus, considering the dispute, regarding the continuance of the child in the school, may cause problem, the complainant alone withdrew the child, considering that may beneficial for both. Thus, as observed by us, both were at fault, and when the opposite party had not provided the service, for the amount received, we feel, proportionately, they should return the amount, as claimed though not compensation, since there was no established deficiency in service. The District Forum instead of approaching the case properly, awarded compensation, which is not agreeable to us. Hence, we are inclined to order the refund of the balance of the amount, collected towards tuition fees, as claimed by the complainant, negativing the compensation and cost. 5. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission in the given facts and circumstances. When the child herself could not adjust to the requirements of the school discipline and was being reported against by the school staff, no fault could be found with the impugned order by which only refund of the fee has been allowed without any compensation. In fact, in our considered opinion, there is no case for compensation. In view of this, we confirm the impugned order and dismiss the revision petition in limine with no order as to cost.