Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia,
Basanti Devi, Member; Mr. Tikka Singh, Member
TILAK RAJ OF CHANDIGARH—Complainant
versus
HARYANA SCHOOL EDUCATION BOARD, BHIWANI—Opposite Party
Complaint Case No. 2 of 1991—Decided on 9.9.1991
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party :Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate.
Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(0) - Service - Is the imparting of education to its Citizens a sovereign regal function of state? (No, it is an industry) - Is such education (when imparted for consideration) a service u/s. 2(1)(o)? (Yes):- Would conduct of Examination for fee by a School Board also service? (Yes). (Para 16)
Held: From the above authoritative enunciation, the irresistible conclusion that arises is that education being within the ambit of industry is inevitably excluded out of the concept of sovereign regal function of the state. (para 13)
Whenever education is imparted for a consideration, it is obvious that there exists a quid pro quo for the provision of education and a monetary recompense there for. On principle, there does not seem any logical reasons for excluding education from the ambit of the definition of service under the Act (para 15)
On principle, precedent, and the language of the statute, education would squarely come within the arena of service under the Act. (para 15A)
Held finally: To conclude on the preliminary objections, it has to be held that the imparting of education by the State is not one of its sovereign regal functions. That being so, the said activity comes clearly within the concept of service under clause (0) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act. Inevitably, the conduct of the Matriculation and Primary examinations by the School Board for a prescribed fee is a service. (para 17)
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(g) r/w 2(1)(o) - Deficiency in service of education - Matriculation examination held by Board in 1981- Complainant a candidate with Roll No. 615347 - His result was declared as Result Later (Eligibility) - Proof of date of birth in question - Records destroyed as proof not received - No notice given before destruction - Whether a deficiency in service?
(Yes)
Held: The Board has wholly failed in its duty of the declaration of the complainants result despite the passage of a decade. Further the failure to issue any notice to him to complete the formalities (if at all there were any) or to inform him and any alleged intendment of the cancellation of his result and the non-publication of any such purported cancellation are further pointers against the h Boards case. The destruction of the examination records of a candidate whose result is yet to be declared, far from being merely negligence seems to be an act of considerable irresponsibility. As said earlier, the burden lay on the Board to show as to why after admitting the complainant to the examination and publishing that his result would be declared later, it has not done so either way. It has miserably failed in discharging that burden.
(Para 24)
Held Further: To finally conclude, there seems no option but to hold that the Board was rendering a service in the performance whereof there has been a glaring and patent deficiency within the meaning of the Act. Indeed there appears to be not merely an imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy therein, but the case appears to be one of negligence which cannot but be culpable. (Para 25)
(iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 14(1)(d) r/w 18 - Complainants matriculation result not declared - Records destroyed without notice - Relief - Rs. 10,000/awarded on compensation.
Held: Once the aforesaid finding has been recorded, all that remains is the nature of relief that can now be granted to the complainant. On the Boards stand that all records have been destroyed, the primal relief of declaring the complainants Matriculation result cannot now be accorded to him. Irretrievable injury has thus been caused to the complainant for which he deserves compensation. However, the complainant has been somewhat remiss in providing adequate evidence for his tall claim of Rs. 5 lacs. Though the injury to him is patent on the well known principle of res-ipsa-loquitor, yet he has not led any evidence for the special damages that may have resulted from the Boards default. Even in the complainants own affidavit barring general assertions about marring his employment potentialities, there is nothing that has been specifically said about the financial quantum of the loss suffered. Nor can we fail to notice that though the non declaration of his result gave him a continuing cause of action and thus no bar of limitation would arise, yet he has taken a somewhat inordinately long time in coming forward to seek relief. In this context and the present state of evidence on the issue of compensation we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- would amply meet the ends of justice in the somewhat peculiar case. (para 26)
Result - Complaint allowed.
IMPORTANT POINT
Conduct of examination by a School Board for a prescribed fee is service u/s. 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
S.S. Sandhawalia, J. — Is the imparting of education to its citizens a sovereign regal function of the State? If not then is such education (when imparted for consideration) a “Service” within the meaning of Clause (o) of sub-Section 1 of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act? If so would the conduct of examination by a School Board for a prescribed fee be equally a service aforesaid? This is the trilogy of significant thresh hold questions in this case, apart from the merits thereof.
2. The facts giving rise to the issues aforesaid lie within a narrow compass. The Haryana School Education Board as its name indicates conducts the Matriculation examination within the State and candidates are allowed to take the same on compliance of the requisite formalities including the payment of a fee prescribed therefore. More than a decade ago the complainant enrolled as a private candidate to appear in the Matriculation examination to be conducted in March, 1981 and was allotted Roll No. 615347. He sat for the said examination at his centre in Chandigarh and the result thereof was published in the official Gazette later. To the chargin of the complainant, his result was described therein as R.L. (Result Later) and (Eligibility) in Annexure C-1 which is a extract therefrom. The complainant who at the material time was a raw youth of 17 years of age ran from pillar to post in trying to get his result officially declared and notified, but to no avail, though he was unofficially informed that he infact had cleared the Matriculation examination. Apart from innumerable verbal requests and enquiries, the complainant made several written representations for expediting the declaration of his result by the Haryana School Education Board (hereinafter called the Board) copies whereof are Annexure C-2. Inordinate delay having occured the Complainant even got the matter highlighted by publication of news Items in the press namely the Dainik Tribune and The Tribune on 24th of November, 1990 and 27th of November, 1990 (Copies thereof being Annexure C-3 and C-4). However, even this elicited no response from the Board.
3. Having exhausted all other remedies the present complaint has been preferred. It is averred therein that the Board rendered “Services” within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act (here- inafter called the Act) and because of the grave deficiency therein of not declaring and publishing his result for more than a decade an irreparable harm has ensued to the complainant. It is the case that all his dreams of rising intellectually & materially in life have been snuffed out by the action of the opposite party and he has been condemned for the result of his life to menial jobs and is now working as a petty car driver. In sum he has claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs. five lacs for the inadequacy and deficiency of the “Service” provided by the opposite-party.
4. In the written statement filed by the Board through its Secretary, preliminary objections to the maintainability of the complaint before this Commission have been raised and strenuously pressed. It is averred that the Board conducts examination of Middle and Matriculation for a prescribed fee which according to them are somewhat nominal charges to partly meet the expenses of the conduct of the examination. This according to the Board is a sovereign function of the State and is a subject of the concurrent list of the 7th Schedule of Constitution of India and, therefore, outside the concept of a “Service,” and consequently of the jurisdiction of this Commission. Equally it is the stand that imparting of education generically is not a “Service” within the meaning of the Act and particularly the mere conduct of examinations is equally outside its scope. In sum, the stand is that the Board renders no “services” and the complainant is consequently not a ‘consumer’.
5. On merits the broad factual matrix of the complainant having sat for the examination and his result having not
