BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C.No: 157/2012 Filed on 23/05/2012

Dated : 15..10..2012

Complainant:

T. Vijayan, School Teacher, Govt. School for the Visual Empired, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.

(Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. Controller of Examination, Kerala University.

2. Vice Chancellor, Kerala University.

This O.P having been heard on 04..10..2012 the Forum on 15..10..2012 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:

Complainant's grievance is as follows: Complainant's son had appeared for the examinations of the subsidiary subjects General Economics & World History on 26/4/2011 & 27/04/2011 but when the results were announced his name was not in the list of candidates who have passed the examinations. Hence complainant appeared for the supplementary examinations for the said subsidiary subjects again on October 17^th & on 18^th by paying an amount of Rs. 320/-. But when the complainant got the marklist of the examinations conducted in April 2011, it was seen that complainant had passed the 'World History' with 43 marks. Complainant alleges deficiency in service and negligence on the part of opposite parties which has resulted in delay in publishing the result and the anomalies in the published list. Hence this complaint for compensation.

2. Opposite parties have filed their preliminary objection challenging the maintainability of the complaint before the Forum on the following grounds. That the complainant's son being an examinee of the University does not fit in the term 'Consumer' nor the University represented by the opposite parties is a Service Provider as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protecion Act and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine as not maintainable before this Forum. That the statutory bodies like University or other institutions and their examinees who write exam under them do not come within the definition of the terms 'Service Provider' and 'Consumer' as defined under Sections 2(o) and 2(d)(1) respectively of the Consumer Protection Act.

3.Hence the question of maintainability was heard as the preliminary issue.

4. The issue to be considered is whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum.

5. The Point: It is the contention of the opposite party that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 8 SCC 483 wherein the Apex Court has held that statutory board does not provide any service in the term used in the Act and examinee is not a consumer. Further opposite parties have relied on the decision of Hon'ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No. 546/2010 decided on 25/06/2011, wherein it has been held that “The materials available on record would make it crystal clear that the opposite parties were neligent in conducting the examination for the 2^nd year, B.A. Degree examination and publishing the result of the complainant who appeared for the aforesaid examinations during April, 2006. So, the 1^st respondent / complainant has got a good case for getting damages for the negligence and lapses on the part of the opposite parties. But the agencies constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute regarding negligence on the part of the University and other educational institutions coming under the university. Therefore, the complainant in C.C.120/09 has to approach a Civil Court competent to decide the aforesaid issues involved in the complaint in C.C.120/09. We find that the said decisions are squarely applicable in this case also.

6. On going through the pleadings and documents produced before the Forum, prima facie Forum finds that there is negligence on the part of the opposite parties in publishing the results of the complainant who appeared for the examinations. But, since the complainant does not come under the definition of 'consumer' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, and since this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute regarding negligence on the part of the University, the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable before the Forum.

Hence the complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach appropriate authority for redressal of his grievances.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15^th day of October, 2012.

sd/-

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.

sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

ad. BEENA KUMARI.A., MEMBER.