A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
HYDERABAD.
F.A. 1507/2007 against C.C. 5/2007, Dist. Forum, Chittoor
Between:
Tirumala Sivakumar
S/o. Late Chengaiah
Age: 17 years, Minor
Rep. by his mother
Smt. Tirumala Mohanamma
W/o. Late Chengaiah
Age: 40 years, Widow
Vadamalpet Post & Mandal
Chittoor Dist. *** Appellant/
Complainant.
And
1) The Secretary
Board of Intermediate Education
A.P. Vidya Bhavan, Nampalli
Hyderabad
2) The Controller of Examinations
Board of Intermediate Education of A.P.
Vidya Bhavan, Nampalli
Hyderabad-500 001.
3) The Principal, Govt. Junior College
Vadamalpet, Chittoor Dist. *** Respondents/
O.Ps.
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. M. Ramgopal Reddy
Counsel for the Resp: Ms. C. Sindhu Kumari
Mr. K. Kishore Kumar Reddy
F.A. 203/2008 against C.C. 5/2007, Dist. Forum, Chittoor
Between:
1) The Secretary
Board of Intermediate Education
A.P. Vidya Bhavan, Nampalli
Hyderabad
2) The Controller of Examinations
Board of Intermediate Education of A.P.
Vidya Bhavan, Nampalli
Hyderabad-500 001.
3) The Principal, Govt. Junior College
Vadamalpet, Chittoor Dist. *** Appellants/Ops
And
Tirumala Sivakumar
S/o. Late Chengaiah
Age: 17 years, Minor
Rep. by his mother
Smt. Tirumala Mohanamma
W/o. Late Chengaiah
Vadamalpet Post & Mandal
Chittoor Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant.
Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. C. Sindhu Kumari
Mr. K. Kishore Kumar Reddy
Counsel for the Resp: Mr. M. Ramgopal Reddy
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
MONDAY, THIS THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
1) These cross-appeals, one preferred by the complainant F.A. 1507/2007 against inadequacy of compensation awarded by the Dist. Forum while the Board of Intermediate Education filed F.A. 203/2008 against the very award granting compensation.
2) Since both these appeals arise out of the same order the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint for felicity of expression and to avoid confusion.
3) The brief facts set out in the complainant are that the complainant studied intermediate vocational course during the period 2004-2006 in op3 college. He appeared for the first year examination in March, 2005 and passed the same. He appeared for the second year intermediate examination in the month of March, 2006, both for main and bridge course. He failed in communication skills in English paper of the main examination. Then he appeared for the said paper in the instant examination held in June, 2006 and declared passed in the main examination. However, he was declared failed in the bridge course on the ground that he did not appear for the test. In fact he appeared for the same. Op3 has sent incorrect codes for the bridge course papers, As such discrepancy has arisen in second paper i.e., Physical Sciences. Even though he appeared for the said paper and passed already and when he informed the said mistake, Op3 in turn informed Ops 1 & 2 to correct the mistake. In spite of it, the board did not correct the mistake. After issuing notice, the complainant filed the case before the Dist. Forum claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the loss and damage of the career besides Rs. 5,000/- for the mental agony.
4) Ops 1 to 3 filed written versions denying the allegations made in the complaint. The main contention was that in the time table of Intermediate March, 2006 examinations there was a mention that any discrepancy in the pass certificate should be brought to the notice of the board through the Principal within one month from the date of publication of results, failing which the board will not own any responsibility either for non-posting of marks or non-release of results. The Principal had made representation to rectify the defect belatedly. At any rate, this cannot be construed as deficiency in service.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that in spite of the Principal informing that there was mistake, still the board did not correct it, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. The Dist. Forum allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant towards compensation.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred F.A. 1507/2007 contending that the Dist. Forum having held the acts of the board amounts to deficiency in service, ought to have awarded the entire compensation sought by him. Not only his career was affected but also he suffered mental agony and therefore prayed that the complaint be allowed in toto.
7) Equally aggrieved by the order of the Dist. Forum, the Intermediate Board preferred F.A. 203/2008 alleging that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It failed to note that if there is any mistake it should be brought to its notice within one month vide circular RC No. 43/C25-4/2006 Dt. 25.4.2006. In the instructions to the candidates and in the time table the said rule was made a mention.
The complainant belatedly represented three months there after. However, the mistake was corrected and despatched to the Principal. The complainant was not a consumer nor it rendered any service attracting the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Therefore it prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
8) The points that arise for consideration are :
i) Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of Board attracting the provisions of Consumer Protection Act?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount?
9) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant has appeared for communication skills in English paper of the main examination and failed. Therefore he appeared for the said paper in the instant examination held in June, 2006 and declared passed along with main examination. Contrarily he was declared failed in the bridge course examination on the ground that he did not appear for the test. When he brought the mistake to the notice of Principal Op3 who in turn informed the Board to correct the same, however, it did not correct. The main contention of the board is that the discrepancy should be brought to its notice within one month from the date of publication of results, failing which it (the board) will not bear any responsibility either for non-posting of marks or non-releasing of results. Though there was belated representation admittedly it made the necessary correction and sent it through Op3 and therefore there was no deficiency in service on its part. No doubt it was a mistake.
10) The question is whether a complaint could lie against the Board for any mistake that was occasioned. This question is no longer res-integra in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha reported in IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC) their Lordships held that :
“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. We are clearly of the view that the Board is not a ‘service provider’ and a student who takes an examination is not a ‘consumer’ and consequently, complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the Board.”
(emphasis supplied)
11) In the light of above authoritative pronouncement, the decision in Controller of Exams, Himachal Pradesh Unviersity Vs. Sanjay Kumar reported in 1(2003) CPJ 273 of the National Commission cannot be applied.
12) The determination of second question is purely academic. The Dist. Forum in fact considering the plight of the complainant awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. When the complainant is not entitled to lay a claim against the Board under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, we are of the opinion that the complainant would not be entitled to any compensation. The order of the Dist. Forum cannot be upheld.
13) In the result F.A. No. 1507/2007 preferred by the complainant is dismissed. F.A. No. 203/2008 preferred by the Board is allowed. The order of the Dist. Forum is set-aside, consequently the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 31. 05. 2010.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
