BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:228 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 11.08.2015.
Date of Decision:01.07.2016
Kumari Sonali aged 17 years minor daughter of Sh. Satyaparkash son of Sh. Jeet Singh through her natural guardian and real grand father Sh. Jeet Singh age 72 years son of Sh. Ram Singh, resident of Village Kilohard, Tehsil & District Sonepat.
.….Complainant.
Versus
Board of School Education Haryana, Bhiwani through its Secretary.
…...Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member
Present:- Sh. Rajesh Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Ganesh Bansal, Advocate for OP.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that she took the examination of 2nd Semester of Senior Secondary Examination of Non-Medical under enrolment No. 10-8-S0-038-0001 vide Roll No. 3213926223 from OP in the year 2013-14 and the result of the complainant was declared by the OP ‘re-appear’ in Math and Physics subjects. It is alleged that thereafter filled the form of re-appear examination and deposited the required fee and also applied for re-valuation of her both papers and before gave the papers of above said both subjects, the OP declared her pass in Math Subject and re-appear in Physics subject. It is alleged that the complainant was not satisfied by the result declared by the OP and applied for the information regarding the abovesaid papers under R.T.I. Act-2005 on dated 30.07.2014, but the OP did not give reply regarding the said application. It is alleged that the OP declared the complainant pass in both subjects i.e. Maths and Physics and also declared the complainant pass in all subjects in previous date i.e. the date of declaring first result in March, 2014 online through Internet, which is clear cut deficiency on the part of OP. The complainant served a legal notice on 27.01.2015 but no reply was given. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondent, she had to suffer mental agony and harassment. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondent and as such she had to file the present complaint.
2. On appearance, the OP filed written statement alleging therein that the result of the complainant was declared on 05.06.2014 and result for the Maths and Physics was for “re-appear”. It is submitted that the complainant applied for re-valuation on 03.07.2014 and after re-valuation the complainant was declared pass in Maths subject and the OP vide his letter dated 22.07.2014 informed the complainant there is some fault in re-valuation and just after re-valuation the complainant was also declared pass in Physics subject on 06.08.2014. It is submitted that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable against the OP because the complainant is not consumer qua the OP. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-13 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the counsel for opposite party has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-8 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the counsel for the parties.
6. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. The counsel for the complainant submitted that there is deficiency on the part of OP because the OP failed to give reply of the R.T.I. application of the complainant. He submitted that the complainant applied for re-valuation of Maths and Physics subject papers and the OP declared the complainant pass in Maths subject but his result for Physics subject was for “re-appear” but when the complainant asked information under the R.T.I. no reply was given by the OP and the OP declared the complainant pass in both subjects Maths and Physics.
7. The counsel for the OP reiterated the contents of reply. He submitted that the result of the complainant was declared on 05.06.2014 and result for the Maths and Physics was for “re-appear”. The complainant applied for re-valuation on 03.07.2014 and after re-valuation the complainant was declared pass in Maths subject and the OP vide his letter dated 22.07.2014 informed the complainant there is some fault in re-valuation and just after re-valuation the complainant was also declared pass in Physics subject on 06.08.2014. He submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of OP. He further submitted that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable against the OP because the complainant is not consumer qua the OP.
8. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. The complainant has not given the dates for the sequence of events which are material. The complainant has failed to adduce any cogent evidence to prove the deficiency in service on the part of OP. Admittedly, the OP is a statutory board conducting academic examinations and the students appearing before the board are not consumer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bihar School Examination Board Versus Suresh Prasad Sinha (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 483 held as under:
“Process of holding examinations, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates are different stages of a single statutory non-commercial function. It is not possible to divide this function as partly statutory and partly administrative. When Examination Board conducts an examination in discharge of its statutory function, it does not offer its “services” to any candidate. Nor does a student who participates in examination conducted by Board, hire or avail of any service from the Board for a consideration”.
In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bihar School Examination Board (supra) the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 01.07.2016. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta)
Member.
