Statutory bodies are not exempt from consumer disputes, and administrative failures in providing services constitute deficiency in service.

Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, Chairman—There are two connected appeals arising out of judgment and order dated 14.6.1994 passed by the District Forum, Nainital. The Board of High School and Intermediate has filed the appeal for quashing the amount of compensation as awarded by the District Forum while Smt. Aneesa Khatoon has filed the appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Since both the appeals arise out of one judgment and order, therefore, both are taken together for disposal. Copy of the judgment shall be placed in the records of each of the appeals.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Aneesa Khatoon (hereinafter called the complainant) had appeared in the Intermediate Examination in the year 1990 as a private candidate. She has taken Urdu as an optional subject. Her result was not declared because her result was not complete. She made inquiry from the Board (hereinafter called the appellant), it was revealed that her marks for Urdu have not been received and she should contact District Inspector of Schools. She contacted District Inspector of Schools, Zonal Secretary and others but till 24.4.1991 her result was not declared. Then she gave the notice under Section 80 of C.P.C., which was received by the opposite parties. The Zonal Secretary of the Board of High School and Intermediate Examination informed that he has submitted the result to the District Inspector of Schools on 12.7.1990. Then the complainant approached the Principal of the college who wrote a letter to the District Inspector of Schools. On 23.12.1991 the District Inspector of Schools again informed that her result has not been obtained. It is alleged that due to non-declaration of her result, she has to suffer one-year loss and she claimed compensation for that.

3. The appellants admitted that the complainant appeared as a private candidate but her result could not be declared because her marks for Urdu were not received. It is said that the Board has sent the result to the District Inspector of Schools on 12.7.1990 and there is no deficiency of service on their part.

After taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them the learned Forum held that there was deficiency in service by the appellant, therefore, allowed the compensation of Rs. 2,000/- besides cost of litigation of Rs. 500/-.

4. Being aggrieved by this order, both the parties have filed separate appeals. One for enhancement by the complainant and the other by the Board for setting aside the order.

5. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and gone through the records. The first question, which was raised by the appellants, is that the complainant was not a consumer. It was argued that the Education Board is a statutory body and appearing in the examination is not a consumer dispute. By being a statutory body everybody has started seeking exemption but the law is not so helpless. The complainant has definitely deposited the examination fees. This aspect was not raised by either of the parties that she has paid nothing for appearing in the examination. She has paid consideration for appearing in the examination and she has appeared in the examination. The Forum or the State Commission will not sit in the judgment and discretion of the Board in declaring the candidate successful or fail according to her merit but the Forum or the Commission will definitely look to the administrative aspect of the case. The candidate appeared in the examination, therefore, she has a right to get her marks. The statutory body or the Board was free to award her zero marks. We have got no jurisdiction to enter into the discharge of their functions by awarding higher marks, less marks but if the answer book has not been examined and her result has been detained due to the neglect or negligence of the department then the Forum will definitely look to it because that is a matter of deficiency in their service.

6. Statutory bodies are not immune from the ambit of consumer disputes. Their