The Court ruled that educational institutions and their incidental activities are not subject to Consumer Protection Act provisions, affirming the need for liberalism in condoning delays for appeals.

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Principal, LDRP Institute of Technology and Research, Gandhinagar, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner Institute), the Opposite Party in the Complaint, against the Order dated 1.7.2019, passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Civil Misc. Application No. 240 of 2019, by which the State Commission has refused to condone the delay of 63 days in filing the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioner Institute. The Appeal had been filed against the Order dated 11.12.2018, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) in Consumer Complaint No. 80 of 2018, whereby the District Commission had partly allowed the Complaint, filed by the Complainant / Respondent herein, and directed the Opposite Party, the Petitioner herein, to pay Rs. 20,000 with interest @ 9% from the date of deposit of fee within 30 days as also Rs. 2,500 as compensation for harassment suffered.

2. The facts in brief are that in the Gujarat Common Entrance Test (GUJCET) 2017, the Complainant / Respondent herein had been allotted the Course of Electronics and Communication Engineering in the Petitioner Institute. The Complainant / Respondent deposited the Tuition Fee of Rs. 20,000 with the Petitioner Institute on 11.7.2017. However, subsequently the Complainant / Respondent neither participated in the admission procedure nor submitted any documents nor appeared for verification thereof, which was a mandatory requirement for confirmation of admission. The Complainant / Respondent withdrawn the seat allotted to him before completion of admission procedure and commencement of new session of the Petitioner Institute. The Complainant / Respondent had taken admission in Medicaps University, Indore on 20.7.2017 and had informed about the same to the Petitioner Instituted on 24.7.2017, with a request to cancel his admission and refund the fee deposited. Though the Petitioner Institute cancelled the admission but did not refund the fee deposited. On 11.5.2018 the Complainant / Respondent also sent a notice in this behalf but all in vain. The Complainant / Respondent filed the afore - noted Complaint before the District Commission, praying for the reliefs stated in the Complaint.

3. There was no representation on behalf of the Petitioner Institute before the District Commission and, therefore, the District Commission set the Petitioner Institute ex - parte and vide Order dated 11.12.2018 partly allowed the Complaint and issued the aforesaid directions to the Petitioner Institute.

4. Feeling aggrieved with the Order passed by the District Commission, the Petitioner Institute filed the Appeal before the State Commission with a delay of 63 days. The State Commission by the Impugned Order has refused to condone the said delay. Hence, the present Revision Petition by the Petitioner Institute.

5. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Institute that the State Commission has grossly erred in not appreciating the vital facts of the Case that there was a delay of 63 days, which was only a technical delay, and all bona fide attempts were made to obtain the copy of the Order dated 11.12.2018 passed by the District Commission. The same was received on 3.4.2019 and, therefore, there was no delay in filing the Appeal. The delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. Further, while taking various other grounds, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Institute states that the Impugned Order passed by the State Commission be set aside and / or the matter be remanded to the District Commission.

6. Hea