Consumer Commission accepts appeal from The One School Goa after approving delay of 325 days

Mumbai: Consumer Commission allows The One School Goa’s appeal, condones delay of 325 days and orders compensation to complainant Vibha Singh | Representative image

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

The NCDRC quashed the earlier decision of the state commission rejecting the institution’s plea. It directed the institution to pay ₹25,000 as compensation to the complainant and deposit ₹5,000 in the legal aid account of the state commission within four weeks. The State Commission has been instructed to handle the appeal in accordance with the law.

A complaint was filed with the South Mumbai District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission by Vibha Singh, a resident of Nalasopara, who was enrolled in a multimedia course at the institution in 2014 and paid a substantial fee of ₹2,99,250. She claimed that despite her persistent efforts, the course had never started.

In addition, the institution allegedly suspended her from the course on false accusations. Singh alleged that she incurred significant expenses but received no services in return.

The district committee had ruled in her favor in 2019 and ordered the institution to refund the course fees and compensation. However, the institution appealed the order to the State Commission citing several challenges, including the COVID-19 pandemic, as reasons for the delay in filing the appeal.

The institution’s counsel argued that the delay was neither deliberate nor deliberate. The principal of the school was busy with administrative responsibilities, including exams and student projects, which delayed the preparation of the profession. Although the final draft of the appeal was ready in March 2020, the national lockdown disrupted its filing.

The counsel further referred to the suo motu order of the Supreme Court extending limitation periods during the pandemic. He stressed that failure to approve the delay would result in a miscarriage of justice.

Lawyer Anand Patwardhan, who represented the institution, said: “The applicant, who was the headmaster of the school, was busy managing the school activities. The lockdown caused inevitable delays as lawyers’ offices and courts were closed. In view of the orders of the Supreme Court on extension of limitation period, the delay must be excused.”

After hearing the arguments of the institution’s counsel, the NCDRC acknowledged 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 ordered the management to pay ₹25,000 to the complainant and deposit ₹5,000 in the legal aid account of the State Commission. The case now goes to the state commission for a decision on the merits.