Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 1532

2009(6) Supreme 421
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran and Markandey Katju, JJ.
Bihar School Examination Board — Appellant (s)
versus
Suresh Prasad Sinha — Respondent (s)
Civil Appeal No. 3911 of 2003
with
C.A.No. 676/2006, C.A.No. 1739/2006, C.A.No. 1764/2006, C.A.No. 2236/2006, C.A.No. 2476/2006, C.A.No. 3718/2005, C.A.No. 6032/2009 @ SLP (C) No. 2844 of 2006
Decided on : 04-09-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Manish Kumar, Ms. vimla Sinha, Gopal Singh, Atul Jha, T.M. Bhagalpuri and Naresh Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent:S.K. Bhattacharya, Ugra Shankar Prasad, Respondent-In-Person and Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
The fact that in the course of conduct of the examination, or evaluation of answer-scripts, or furnishing of mark-sheets or certificates, there may be some negligence, omission or deficiency, does not convert the Board into a service-provider for a consideration, nor convert the examinee into a consumer who can make a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act 1986 – Section 11 – Complaint filed by respondent, on behalf of his minor son alleging that he appeared in the Bihar Secondary School Examination in 1998 and since his son and another student were allotted the same Roll No. 496,Centre Superintendent allotted Roll No.496A to his son – However result of his son was not published in spite of several letters written by him and hence he had to re-appear in the Board Examination the following year, and thus had to suffer a loss of one year allegedly due to the fault of the Bihar School Examination Board – Complaint allowed by District Consumer Forum –Appeals thereagainst were dismissed by State Commission and National Commission – Appeal – The object of the Act is to cover in its net, services offered or rendered for a consideration – Any service rendered for a consideration is presumed to be a commercial activity in its broadest sense (including professional activity or quasi-commercial activity) – But the Act does not intended to cover discharge of a statutory function of examining whether a candidate is fit to be declared as having successfully completed a course by passing the examination – The fact that in the course of conduct of the examination, or evaluation of answer-scripts, or furnishing of mark-sheets or certificates, there may be some negligence, omission or deficiency, does not convert the Board into a service-provider for a consideration, nor convert the examinee into a consumer who can make a complaint under the Act – Hence held that Board was not a ‘service provider’ and a student who takes an examination is not a ‘consumer’ – Consequently, complaint under Act held not maintainable against the Board. (Paras 10, 11, 19 to 21)
       Facts of the Case :
        1. A Complaint was filed by respondent, on behalf of his minor son herein in the instant case alleging that he appeared in the Bihar Secondary School Examination in 1998 and since his son and another student were allotted the same Roll No. 496,Centre Superintendent allotted Roll No.496A to his son. However result of his son was not published in spite of several letters written by him and hence he had to re-appear in the Board Examination the following year, and thus had to suffer a loss of one year allegedly due to the fault of the Bihar School Examination Board. Said Complaint was allowed by District Consumer Forum. Appeals thereagainst were dismissed by State Commission and National Commission.
        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of National Commission.
       Findings of the Court :
        The object of the Act is to cover in its net, services offered or rendered for a consideration. Any service rendered for a consideration is presumed to be a commercial activity in its broadest sense (including professional activity or quasi-commercial activity). But the Act does not intended to cover discharge of a statutory function of examining whether a candidate is fit to be declared as having successfully completed a course by passing the examination. The fact that in the course of conduct of the examination, or evaluation of answer-scripts, or furnishing of mark-sheets or certificates, there may be some negligence, omission or deficiency, does not convert the Board into a service-provider for a consideration, nor convert the examinee into a consumer who can make a complaint under the Act. Hence held that Board was not a ‘service provider’ and a student who takes an examination is not a ‘consumer’ . Consequently, complaint under Act was held to be not maintainable against the Board.
       Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Markandey Katju, J.—

This appeal by special leave has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.10.2002 in R.P. No. 2167/02 of the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. It appears that a complaint was filed before the District Consumer Forum, Hazaribagh under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The complaint was filed by the respondent, Suresh Prasad Sinha on behalf of his minor son Rajesh Kumar. In the said complaint it was mentioned that Rajesh Kumar appeared in the Bihar Secondary School Examination in 1998. Rajesh Kumar and another student Sunil Kumar Singh were allotted the same Roll No. 496. Hence, the Centre Superintendent allotted to Rajesh Kumar Roll No.496A and this was communicated to the Board office at Patna. The result of Rajesh Kumar was not published in spite of several letters written by him and hence he had to re-appear in the Board Examination the following year, and thus he had to suffer a loss of one year allegedly due to the fault of the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’). The result of Roll No.496A was not declared and it is alleged that this was because Rajesh Kumar had been given another Roll number. Hence the complainant prayed for compensation from the District Consumer Forum.

4. In its written statement in reply the Board stated that the Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction in the matter as the complainant was not a consumer, as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. It was also alleged that on the application of the examinee the strong room was searched and it was found that the serial number of his answer book of Advanced Maths did not tally with the serial number in the attendance sheet. While the answer book of the student found in the strong room was bearing serial number 148774, the attendance sheet serial number was 148744. Hence, the result was not published.

5. The District Consumer Forum found that the complainant had filed the Registration Receipt as well as the Admit Card, and the case of the complainant was admitted so far as appearance of Rajesh Kumar in the examination was concerned. It was held that if the serial number of the answer book did not tally with that which was noted in the attendance-sheet, that has to be explained by the Board and not by the student. Hence the District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint and ordered the Board to pay compensation of Rs.12,000/- with an interest of 12% to the complainant.

6. Against the said order the Board filed an appeal before the State Consumer Redressal Commission under Section 14 of the Act,which was dismissed on 9.9.2002. In the order dated 9.9.2002, it has been again stated in para 6 thereof that one of the contentions raised by the Board was that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Act. It seems that that plea was not, in fact, decided by the State Consumer Commission.

7. The appellant Board then filed a further appeal before the National Consumer Commission under Section 19 of the Act, which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 24.10.2002. Against the said impugned judgment and order this appeal has been filed by the Board under Section 23 of the Act.

8. The question that arises for our consideration is whether a statutory School Examination Board comes within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. There is some confusion and divergence in the decisions of the National Commission on this issue. In some cases, it has been held that Examination Boards do not come within the purview of the Act. In some other cases, the Commission has held that though holding of examinations is a statutory function, issue of mark-sheets and certificates etc., is an administrative function, and therefore, the Examination Boards are amenable to the jurisdiction of consumer fora if there is neg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 1532

Cases Referred (6)