AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PETITIONER-Vijay Kumar was the original complainant and respondents 1 and 2 were opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively in the complaint filed before the District Forum.
BRIEFLY stated, the complainant had appeared at the B.P.P. (Bachelor Preparatory Programme) examination conducted by the Indira Gandhi National Open University with Regional Centre at Karnal. The examination was held on 3.6.2008 and 6.6.2008 respectively. The grievance of the complainant was that the opposite parties had supplied the study material to him very late because of which he could not prepare himself properly for appearing at the examination and thus, he alleged deficiency in service against the opposite parties and filed the complaint in question.
ON the other hand, it is the case of the opposite parties that due to sending of incomplete application form by the complainant, his admission could be confirmed on 29.4.2008 and the study material was despatched to him by speed post on 15.5.2008. Denying any kind of deficiency in service on their part, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
ON appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence before it, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission with a delay of 59 days. He, however, remained absent when his appeal was taken up for consideration by the State Commission. While the State Commission condoned the delay of 59 days in filing the appeal by the petitioner, it did not find any case for interference with the order of the District Forum and hence dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 12.7.2010. It is against this order of the State Commission that the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.
THE petitioner has appeared in person to plead his case. We have heard him and perused the record. However, we do not find any merit or substance in this case, which would justify our interference with the impugned order. We agree with the view taken by the Fora below that in the given facts and circumstances of the case when the petitioner himself was guilty of having sent incomplete information in the application forms, which delayed the confirmation of his admission to the examination, leading to delay in despatch of the study material to him, no deficiency in service could be attributed to the opposite parties.
THE revision petition, therefore, stands dismissed in limine. No costs.