The impugned order was passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No.317 of 2012. The appeal of the OP/Krishna Institute of Education and Technology against the order of District Forum Yamuna Nagar was dismissed by the State Commission.
2. The District Forum came to a conclusion that the Complainant/respondent No.1 in the present proceedings was admitted to B.Ed course by the OP in violation of the condition that no counselling for admission shall be done after 30.9.2007. Despite this restriction, the OP admitted the Complainant to the course by receiving Rs.1.7 lakhs between and 15.11.2007 and 26.11.2007. Before the District Forum, these payments were established by receipts issued to the Complainant on the 15th, 17th and 26th of November, 2007. Consumer complaint was filed when all colleges, which had given such admissions after the prescribed cut of date, were directed by Kurukshetra University to cancel the irregular admissions and inform the Controller of Examination of the University. The District Forum directed refund of the entire amount of Rs.1.7 lakhs with 9% interest.
3. The appeal against the above order was filed with a delay of 100 days, which was not condoned by the State Commission. The State Commission has held that the plea taken by the OP, that due to mistake of the office staff of the Institute the case file was misplaced and recovered after search, did not amount to sufficient cause. Therefore, the Commission held that it was not a fit case for condonation. Even on the merits, it was held that undisputed fact was that the admission was given on 15.11.2007 when the prescribed cut of date was 30.9.2007. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed both on merit and limitation.
4. We have carefully perused the records and heard the counsel for the revision petitioner/ Krishna Institute of Education and Technology. The revision petitioner seeks to find fault with the decision of the fora below claiming that the cut of date for admission was 15.10.2007 and not 30.9.2007. We fail to understand how this contention can be of any help to the case of the revision petitioner, when admission to the Complainant was actually given neither in September nor in October but in November, 2007.
5. Another ground of challenge to the impugned order is that the application for condonation of delay was rejected by the State Commission without going into the facts and reasons mentioned therein. The petitioner however, has given no details of specific facts or reasons which were substantiated by the petitioner before the State Commission but not considered by the latter.
6. The revision petitioner also seeks to rely on the decision in Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, 2009 (3) SCC 424. The matter before the Apex Court in this case arose from allotment of the same Roll number by the Board to two candidates appearing in the Bihar Secondary School Examination 1998. Due to the resultant problem, the result of the Complainant was withheld by the Board. Consequently, he had to reappear in the examination, leading to loss of one academic year. The question before the Apex Court was whether the statutory school examination Board would come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court answered the question in the negative holding that:-
“The Board is a statutory authority established under the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952. The function of the Board is to conduct school examinations. This statutory function involves holding periodical examinations, evaluating the answer scripts, declaring the results and issuing certificates. The process of holding examinations, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates are different stages of a single statutory non-commercial function. It is not possible to divide this function as partly statutory and partly administrative. When the Examination Board conducts an examination in discharge of its statutory function, it does not offer its “services” to any candidate. Nor does a student who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, hires or avails of any service from the Board for a consideration. On the other hand, a candidate who participates in the examination on conducted by the Board, is a person who has undergone a course of study and who requests the Board to test him as to whether he has imbibed sufficient knowledge to be fit to be declared as having successfully completed the said course of education; and if so, determine his position or rank or competence vis-a-vis other examinees. The process is not therefore availment of a service by a student, but participation in a general examination conducted by the Board to ascertain whether he is eligible and fit to be considered as having successfully completed the secondary education course. The examination fee paid by the student is not the consideration for availment of any service, but the charge paid for the privilege of participation in the examination.”
7. We find that the facts of the case of the revision petitioner are totally different. It is not the case of the petitioner that it is a statutory board. It is a private educational institution. The petitioner cannot claim to be discharging any statutory function. Therefore, the case of the revision petitioner can draw no support from the above decision.
8. For the reasons detailed in the foregoing paras, we hold that the revision petition is devoid of any merit and must fail. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs 25,000/-. The same shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondent/complainant within three months. Failing this, the amount shall also carry interest at 10% for the period of delay. | 
