Back
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BOMBAY
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President;
Mrs. Ellen Dharkar, Member
MAHARASTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION—Appellant
versus
CHAIRMAN, GRAHAKJAGRUTI SANGH—Respondent
Appeal No. 631 of 1993—Decided on 20.12.1993
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Chawhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Absent.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the activities of the Education Board, such as conducting examinations and revaluation of answer papers, do not constitute services for hire under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Education Board Services - The court held that the Education Board's activities such as conducting examinations, revaluation of answer papers, and announcing results do not constitute services for hire under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the complaint regarding negligence in revaluation of papers by the Board was not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.
Fact of the Case:
A student lost one academic year due to the negligence in the revaluation of his examination papers by the Education Board. The District Forum awarded compensation, but the Board appealed against the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Education Board's activities did not constitute services for hire under the Consumer Protection Act, based on a decision of the National Commission. Therefore, the complaint was not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.
Issues: The main issue was whether the negligence in revaluation of examination papers by the Education Board constituted deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Education Board's activities, including revaluation of answer papers, did not fall under the definition of services for hire under the Consumer Protection Act, based on the decision of the National Commission.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the order of the District Forum awarding compensation was set aside.
Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President—This is an appeal against the order of District Forum, Chandrapur dated 28th July, 1993 (passed in complaint No. 10/93. A complaint was filed by Grahak Jagruti Sangh, a social organisation working at Chandrapur alleging deficiency in the service of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education, Pune (for Short Board). Ravindra Burande, appeared for S.S.C. Examination in March, 1992. The result of examination of complainant declared in June, 1992 by the Board shows that Ravindra failed. Ravindra was declared failed in English paper, having obtained only 6 Marks. Ravindra there- fore, applied for re-valuation of his English paper and after 4 months i.e. on 29th September, 1992, he was declared to have secured 61 marks instead of 6 marks in his examination. It is, therefore, alleged in the complaint that because of inordinate delay in revaluation of the marks, Revindra lost one academical year. The District Forum allowed the complaint and awarded Rs. 17,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 3,000/- cost to the complainant. The defence of the Board was that there was error in declaring the results. Further it was contended that the delay was not deliberate wilful or mala fide. It was also contended that the services rendered by the Board for verification of the marks did not constitute service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.
2. We have heard Shri Chawhan, Advocate, for the appellant, whereas respondent was absent though noticed. Shri Chawhan has invited our attention to the decision of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, rendered in Revision Petition No. 11/93 dated 29th September, 1993, Joint Secretary, Gujarat Secondary Education Board v. Bharat Narotam Thakkar. The National Commission in the aforesaid Revision petition has held that in conducting the Secondary School Board Examinations, valuation of answer papers, announcing the result thereof and thereafter conducting the re-checking of the marks of any candidate on application made by the concerned candidate, the Board is not performing any service for hire and there is no arrangement for hiring of any service involved in such a situation as is contemplated by Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the National Commission, the impugned order passed by District Forum, Chandrapur cannot be upheld. Although Ravindra in the instant case, lost one year due to the negligence in the revaluation of the papers by the Board and the error being admitted by the Board, the complaint could not be maintainable before Consumer Forum. In view of the decision of the National Commission that the student can not be said to have hired the services of the Board for consideration. Under these circumstances, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order.
Appeal allowed
_
