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.                                                                                                                 1) 

Board of Intermediate Education

A.P. Vidya Bhavan, Nampalli

Hyderabad

2) 

Board of Intermediate Education of A.P.

Vidya Bhavan, Nampalli

Hyderabad-500 001.

3) Govt.Junior College

Vadamalpet, Chittoor Dist.                                                                                                               

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) 

Board of Intermediate Education

A.P. Vidya Bhavan, Nampalli

Hyderabad

2) 

Board of Intermediate Education of A.P.

Vidya Bhavan, Nampalli

Hyderabad-500 001.

3) Govt.Junior College

Vadamalpet, Chittoor Dist.                                                                       

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.                                                                                                

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,    

2)                

3)                                             

4)                    

5)           

6)           

7)                        

8)      

i)                  Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of Board  

ii)                Whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation? 

9)                              No doubt

10)                  the decision of the Supreme Court inBiharSchool    

“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.

11)      

12)               

13)           

1)PRESIDENT 

2)      MEMBER  

*pnr