Mumbai: Consumer Commission allows The One School Goa’s appeal, condoning a 325-day delay, and orders compensation to complainant Vibha Singh | Representational 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 industries, condoning a delay of 325 days in its filing. The commission passed the order after the institution’s advocate argued that the case had merit and denying the condonation would result in a miscarriage of justice.
The NCDRC set aside the State Commission’s earlier order rejecting the institution’s plea. It directed the institution to pay ₹25,000 as compensation to the complainant and deposit ₹5,000 into the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission within four weeks. The State Commission has been instructed to consider the appeal as per the law.
A complaint was filed before 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, paying a substantial fee of ₹2,99,250. She alleged that despite her persistent efforts, the course never commenced.
Additionally, the institution allegedly suspended her from the course on false accusations. Singh claimed that she incurred significant expenses but received no services in return.
The District commission, in 2019 had ruled in her favour thereby directing the institution to refund the course fee along with compensation. The institution, however, appealed the order to the State Commission, citing various 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 intentional nor deliberate. The head of the school was preoccupied with administrative responsibilities, including exams and student projects, which delayed the preparation of the appeal. Although the final draft of the appeal was ready in March 2020, the nationwide lockdown disrupted its filing.
The counsel further referenced the Supreme Court’s suo motu order extending limitation periods during the pandemic. He emphasized that not condoning the delay would result in a miscarriage of justice.
Advocate Anand Patwardhan, representing the institution, stated: “The applicant, being the Head of the School, was busy managing school operations. The lockdown caused unavoidable delays, as offices of advocates and courts were closed. Considering the Supreme Court’s orders on limitation extensions, the delay should be excused.”
After hearing the arguments proceeded by the institution’s counsel, 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 into the State Commission’s Legal Aid Account. The case will now proceed before the State Commission for a decision on merit.
