Consumer Commission accepts One School Goa’s appeal after tolerating 325-day delay

Mumbai: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has accepted an appeal filed by The One School Goa, an interdisciplinary creative media school for the entertainment and edutainment industries, condoning a delay of 325 days in its submission. The commission approved the order after the institution’s attorney argued that the case had merit and that denying forgiveness would result in a miscarriage of justice.

The NCDRC set aside the State Commission’s earlier order rejecting the institution’s claim. It directed the institution to pay Rs 25,000 as compensation to the complainant and deposit Rs 5,000 in the legal aid account of the State Commission within four weeks. The State Commission has been instructed to consider the appeal in accordance with the law.

Vibha Singh, a resident of Nalasopara, who enrolled in a multimedia course at the institution in 2014, filed a complaint with the Mumbai South District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and paid a substantial fee of Rs 2,99,250. He alleged that despite his persistent efforts, the course never started.

Furthermore, the institution allegedly suspended her from the course due to false accusations. Singh claimed he incurred significant expenses but received no services in return.

The district commission, in 2019, ruled in their favour, thereby ordering the institution to refund the course fee along with compensation. The institution, however, appealed the order before the State Commission, citing several challenges, including the COVID-19 pandemic, as reasons for the delay in filing the appeal.

The institution’s lawyer argued that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. The school principal was concerned about administrative responsibilities, including exams and student projects, which delayed preparation of the appeal. Although the final draft of the appeal was ready in March 2020, the nationwide lockdown interrupted its submission.

The lawyer also made reference to the suo motu order of the Supreme Court that extends the limitation periods during the pandemic. He stressed that failure to tolerate the delay would result in a miscarriage of justice.

Advocate Anand Patwardhan, representing the institution, stated: “The petitioner, being the principal of the school, was busy managing the school operations. The shutdown caused inevitable delays, as law offices and courts were closed. Keeping in mind the Supreme Court orders on extensions of limitation, the delay must be excused.”

After hearing the arguments presented by the institution’s lawyer, the NCDRC recognized the challenges posed by the pandemic and accepted the reasons for the delay. However, it imposed costs on the institution to ensure accountability.

The commission directed the management to pay Rs 25,000 to the complainant and deposit Rs 5,000 in the legal aid account of the State Commission. The case will now go before the State Commission to rule on the merits.