Judgment:
Suresh Chandra, Member
This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.7.2009 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State Mumbai in F.A. No.1540 of 2007 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.9.2007 passed by the District Forum, Thane in consumer complaint No.338 of 2006 by which the District Forum had dismissed the consumer complaint of the petitioner. Thus the State Commission also dismissed the consumer complaint filed by the petitioner while dismissing the appeal.
2. There is a delay of one year (274 days as per Registrys report) in filing this revision petition. The petitioner has, therefore, filed an application for condonation of delay. In support of his request for condonation, the petitioner has stated in the application that the impugned order dated 14.7.2009 was received by the petitioner on 31.7.2009 after which the petitioner was suffering from anxiety and restlessness and thus was under medical treatment from 2.8.2009 till 8.7.2010. The petitioner has enclosed copies of record of his treatment at Shaila Welfare Trust, which is a free Chairtable Homeopathic Dispensary. The record indicates his ailment as anxiety with restlessness and loss of sleep for which the doctor has prescribed certain homeopathy medicines but there is no indication or medical certificate to the effect that during the period of his treatment from 2.8.2009 to 8.7.2010 by Dr. S.R. Khare the petitioner was unable to or prevented from taking necessary action for filing the revision petition on account of his being unwell and bedridden. Another discharge certificate from ESIS hospital dated 14.6.2004 has also been filed by the petitioner. However, this discharge certificate does not cover the period in question. In the circumstances, the reason of his medical treatment being given in support of condonation of delay cannot be accepted as sufficient cause for condonation of delay in question. We are, therefore, not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of one year (274 days according to the Registry).
3. Even on merits, the petitioner has no case. Briefly stated, petitioners niece Ms. Mamta Singh after completing her graduation took admission in the respondent college in the B.Ed. degree course in July, 2003 for which necessary fees was paid to the college. The said Mamta Singh appeared for the B.Ed. exam and after completion of the course, she was issued a mark sheet from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. As per the allegation of the petitioner, he approached the respondent college and requested the Principal to issue a valid B.Ed. degree because according to him the mark sheet given by the OP was of no use in getting a job. According to the petitioner, the mark sheet was not issued by a government recognized college/university. The petitioner accordingly requested the respondents to return back the amount of Rs.39,500/- including the donation and the course fee. On refusal of the respondents to return the money, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint in question before the District Forum on behalf of his niece alleging deficiency in service. Finding no merit in the consumer complaint, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner carried the same before the State Commission through an appeal which also came to be dismissed by the State Commission by its impugned order as stated above.
4. We have heard the petitioner who has appeared in person. His only contention is that the respondent college cheated him because the B.Ed. course for which his niece had taken admission into the college is not a recognized course and hence the degree for the course is of no use to her in getting a government job. According to him, the degree of B.Ed. course issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is not a valid degree and as such there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondent college. The Fora below failed to appreciate this aspect and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. We have considered his contention and perused the impugned order. The State Commission has already considered the contention raised by the petitioner in its impugned order and while discussing his appeal and the complaint, it has recorded the following reasons in support of the impugned order:-
œWe perused the impugned order and the documents placed before us. We are finding that the order passed by the forum below is just and proper. Respondent published prospectus for their correspondence courses. Complainant has taken admission for B.Ed. Course. The pamphlet issued shows it is a Government of India recognized course. Notification dated 17/05/1988 issued by Central Board of Secondary Education (under Human Resource Ministry of Union of India) recognized B.Ed. degree of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad. Complainant Mamta appeared and passed said examination after completing the course term at the institute of opposite party. The complainant must have filled form to appear to B.Ed. examination conducted on behalf of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad and therefore, there cannot be any surprise, as alleged, on receipt of the mark sheet issued by said institution. It is nowhere represented that said course is recognized by Government of Maharashtra. Under the circumstances, the very foundation for his complaint is weakened. After knowing the full prospectus and notification, appellant has taken admission and appeared for the examination. Respondent was also issued mark sheet. Therefore question of refund of the said course fee does not arise. Under the circumstances, we find the appeal devoid of any substance. There is no need to interfere with the impugned order.?
6. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Since the course for which the respondent college had given admission to the niece of the petitioner is recognized course as can be seen from the documents placed by the petitioner himself before the Fora below, no fault could be found with the impugned order. Simply because the petitioner is unable to secure a job on the basis of the degree obtained by her cannot be a ground for alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent college. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the concurrent finding returned by the Fora below against the petitioner. The revision petition, therefore, is dismissed in limine both on the grounds of limitation and on merits with no order as to costs.