This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Registrar, University of Agricultural Science against the order dated 04.08.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telengana, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in FAIA.514/2017.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant took admission in the petitioner University in B.Sc. (Agriculture) and paid a fees of Rs.3,25,000/- on 10.08.2015. The respondent attended classes from 17.08.2015 to 24.09.2015.  On 24.09.2015, respondent applied for her documents and fees to be returned as she got admission in some other course in some other University. The documents were returned.  However, the fee was not refunded. Therefore, the complainant/respondent filed a consumer complaint bearing No.631 of 2015 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Hyderabad, (in short ‘the District Forum’).  The complaint was resisted by the opposite party by filing written reply.  However, the District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order dated 27.01.2017 and directed the opposite party/petitioner herein to return an amount of Rs.2,92,044/- along with a cost of Rs.5,000/- only. 

3.      Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the petitioner herein/opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide order dated 04.08.2017.

4.      Hence the present revision petition.

5.      Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

6.      Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the rules of the University clearly provide that the fees deposited shall not be refunded in any case.  Both the fora below have passed the order on the basis of the circular of UGC, which is not applicable to the petitioner herein.  Moreover, that circular is applicable on those cases where the admission is sought to be cancelled before closing of the counselling.  The classes for the Ist Semester of said B.Sc., Agri course started within a week i.e. on 17-8-2015.  She attended the classes up to 24-9-2015.  It was at that stage, the Complainant gave application for return of the original testimonials with a request to permit her to discontinue her course on the reason that she got seat in some other college.  Her original certificates were retuned on the same date as per her request.  Since, the seat for the said course allotted to the Complainant was meant for NRI and also the complainant joined the classes on 17-8-2015 and continued in the course up to 24-9-2015, the question of maintaining any waiting list of other candidates does not arise in the case on hand as the admissions were closed long back.  In this connection the Clause No.5.1.2 of Academic Information and Regulations of the opposite party specifically reads as “Registration of candidates admitted from waiting list shall cease after 4 weeks of commencement of the Ist Semester.  Hence as on the date of discontinuance of the complainant in respect of the said course i.e. on 24-9-2015, as per the said clause, the waiting list stood  already ceased as more than the said period of 4 weeks had already elapsed.  It was  submitted that the after withdrawal of the complainant from the course the seat became vacant from the date of her discontinuance of the seat in the University of the Opposite Party and therefore, there was no possibility or scope to fill the said seat in the middle of the course.  No other student was admitted by the opposite party against the said left out seat by the complainant.

7.        Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that there was a delay of 76 days in filing the appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently the appeal.  The petitioner has a very strong case on merits and is hopeful to get his remedy in the appeal.  It was requested that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the appeal be decided on merits. 

8.      On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent/complainant stated that the petitioner was contesting before the District Forum and the District Forum has passed the order after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case.  The petitioner got full opportunity to defend its case before the District Forum.  As the petitioner was a party before the District Forum, there should have been no questions of delay in filing the appeal.  The State Commission has rightly dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently the appeal.

9.      I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record.  The petitioner has not filed a copy of the application for condonation of delay submitted before the State Commission.  However, the State Commission has observed the following:-

        “This is an application filed by the petitioner under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act praying this Commission to condone the delay of 76 days in preferring the appeal against the orders of the District Forum, Ranga Redddy made in CC No.631 of 2015 dated 27.01.2017 on the ground that the order was passed on 27.01.2017 and dispatched on 04.02.2017 and the last date for filing the appeal would be 06.03.2017.  But due to communication gap no information nor order copy was received from the counsel.  Thereafter the counsel had applied for certified copy on 30.03.2017 and obtained certified copy on 03.04.2017 and received the same on 03.04.2017 and after taking the legal opinion from the local standing counsel filed the appeal and in that process there has been delay of 76 days in filing the appeal which is neither wilful nor wanton.”

10.    The State Commission has relied upon many judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as of this Commission and finally reached to the following conclusion:-

“9.   Coming to the facts the very same plea was raised and sought condonation of delay of 76 days.  We are of the opinion that the ground being routine and absolutely no document whatsoever was filed as to why so much of delay had occasioned at different levels, we are unable to entertain the application.

10.  Applying the principles in the aforesaid judgments to the facts of the case, this Commission finds that the petitioner has failed to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay warranting exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of this Commission.  The petition is accordingly dismissed.  Consequently the appeal stands rejected.  No costs.”

11.    From the observation of the State Commission, it is clear that no supporting documents were filed by the petitioner along with application for condonation of delay and therefore, the delay could not be condoned by the State Commission.  The learned counsel for the petitioner has not put forward any pressing circumstances as to why the appeal could not be filed within time before the State Commission.  Special limitation periods have been prescribed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for speedy disposal of consumer disputes. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has laid down that;

“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.”

12.   Decision of Anshul Aggarwal (Supra) has been reiterated in CicilyKallarackal  Vs. 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”.

13.  Similarly, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kailash Devi & Ors. AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45, it has been laid down that:-

“There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the applicant. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one of is not to be swayed by sympathy or benevolence”.

14.    In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. 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”.

15.    The above authoritative judgments are fully applicable in the present case and negligence and deliberate inaction is imputable to the petitioner.  Hence, I do not find any occasion to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission.

16.    Based on the above discussion, revision petition No.3205 of 2017 is dismissed.