Punjab

Faridkot

CC/14/164

Manpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Govt. Senior Sec School - Opp.Party(s)

K.S.Mittal

06 Jul 2015

ORDER

    DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :       164

Date of Institution :  1.12.2014

Date of Decision :     6.07.2015

Manpreet Singh s/o Jagga Singh s/o Banta Singh, r/o Ward No. 3, Sada Patti, Jaitu, District Faridkot.                                                                                          

.....Complainant

Versus

1. Principal, Government Sr Sec School (Boys), Hospital Road, Jaitu.

2. Chairman, Punjab School Education Board, S A S Nagar, Mohali, Phase-8, Punjab.

                                                                                                  .........OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

Sh P L Singla, Member.

Present:       Sh K S Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

 Sh Jugraj Singh on behalf of OP-1,

 Sh R S Brar, Ld Counsel for OP-2.

 

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                                         Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to supply the detail marks card and degree of 10 +2 and has also prayed to direct Ops to pay Rs 1,00,000/- as compensation for inconvenience, harassment and mental agony besides Rs 11,000/- as cost of litigation and not to leave India without permission of this Forum.

  2                                                    Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant appeared in 10+2 examination through OP-1 conducted by OP-2, but even after lapse of three months, OP-2 did not declare the result of complainant and withheld the same without disclosing any reason. Complainant visited OP-1 to know the reason  for not disclosing his result, but OP-1 showed ignorance as examination was conducted by OP-2 and then, complainant approached OP-2, where officials of OP-2 disclosed that registration of complainant has not been done with OP-2 and this was the reason for withholding his result. Thereafter, complainant approached OP-1, where he was told that registration has been done by OP-1 and all requisite information/formality as well as necessary fee has been deposited with OP-2 and there is no fault of OP-1. Thereafter, complainant visited OP-2 and narrated all facts to officials of OP-2, who assured him that needful would be done and his result would be declared and intimated to him. Counsel for complainant submitted that complainant is a poor disabled person and belongs to Scheduled Caste and he has not enough resources to bear expenses for travelling to Mohali again and again. Officials of OP-2 orally explained complainant that he is pass in 10 +2 examination, but his degree and detail marks card could not be supplied to him due to some clerical mistake and assured to supply the same to him within one month. It is contended that even after one month, OP-2 has not released his DMC and degree and due to this reason, he has to drop his study. Complainant has also served legal notice to OP-2, but OP-2 did not bother to reply the same. This act of OPs has caused great harassment and mental tension to complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant has prayed for accepting the complaint and for seeking directions to OPs to pay Rs 1,00,000/- as compensation for inconvenience, harassment and mental agony besides Rs 11,000/- as cost of litigation besides main relief. Hence, the complaint.

  3                                              The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 2.12.2014, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                                        On receipt of the notice issued by this Forum, OP-1 filed reply taking preliminary objection that present complaint is not maintainable in the present form and also denied if any legal notice is received by them and asserted that answering OP is not covered under the provision of Consumer Act as it has neither charged any fee for the issuance of certificate. However, on merits, it is admitted that result of complainant for 10+2 examination was withheld by OP-2 and it was declared as RL (E), but denied all other allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering opposite party.

5                                                            On receipt of the notice, OP-2 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint is not covered under the provisions of the 2 (I )  ( o ) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 as Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has specifically observed in the case titled as Bihar School Examination Board Vs Suresh Prashad  Sinha passed on 4.09.2009 that Board is not a ‘Service Provider’ and a student, who takes an examination is not a ‘Consumer’ and consequently, complaint under the Consumer Protection Act will not be maintainable against the Board. Counsel for OP-2 asserted that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands as he has concealed the material facts from this Forum and moreover,  the  complainant  has no locus standi to file the present complaint and complainant is barred by his own act and conduct to file and pursue the present complaint and therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed. Opposite Party No.                 -2 submitted that complainant appeared in 12^th examination held in March 2001 under Roll No. 336759 and his result was declared as Result later (Eligibility) in official gazette of OP. In official gazette of answering Opposite Party, the Registration No. was  not  published  as  the  concerned  school  has                 not  submitted  the relevant  documents  for  allotment  of   registration     number  and  now  the  answering  OP  has  destroyed  all  record  up  to  session 2010-2011 and therefore, result of complainant cannot be declared at this belated stage as record has already been destroyed. In this regard, OP-2 issued public notice dt 25.07.2014 in three leading newspapers called Jagbani, Hindustan Times and Danik Jagran but complainant did not approach OP-2 for the declaration of his result. It is also submitted that complainant approached this Forum after 14 years and therefore, complaint may be dismissed on the basis of delay. However, on merits it is asserted that complainant appeared in 12^th examination in March 2001 under Roll no. 336759 and his result was declared as Result later (Eligibility) in the official gazette of OP and it was given so because complainant has not submitted relevant documents for the registration number in the said examination. It is submitted that complainant has not submitted relevant documents for registration number as it was their own responsibility to do the formalities for the registration number and there is no fault on the part of answering OP and has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and asserted that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of answering opposite parties. All other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering opposite parties.

6                                                          Parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them.  The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-11 and then, closed the evidence.

7                 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Jugraj Singh, Principal Ex. OP-1/1 and additional affidavit as Ex OP-1/2 and documents Ex OP-1/3 to 1/15 and then, closed the evidence. Counsel for OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Narayan Singh Sr Asstt, (Examination Branch) P S Ed B as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to 7 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OP-2.                                             

8               Ld Counsel for complainant contended that in March 2001, complainant appeared for examination of 10+2 through Op-1 which was conducted by Op-2.  After three months of examination, the result was declared by OP-2 but the result of the complainant was withheld by OP-2 without disclosing any reason. Complainant visited OP-1 to know the reason for not declaring his result, but OP-1 showed ignorance as examination was conducted by OP-2. Complainant approached OP-2, who told complainant that his registration has not been done with OP-2 so, his result was not declared. Complainant asked OP-1 regarding this and he was told that his registration has been duly done and all the information alongwith fee have been deposited with OP-2 and there is no fault on their part. Again complainant visited office of OP-2 and official of OP-2 assured complainant that result of complainant would be declared and intimated to him and they would do all the needful but till today, complainant has not received any information from OPs about his result and the result of the complainant has not been declared. The complainant again visited the office of OP-2 and official of OP-2 orally told him that he passed the examination on 1.08.2014 and due to clerical mistake in the office of OP-2, the Detail Marks Card and degree of the complainant can not be supplied to him but it would be supplied to him within a short interval but complainant has not received these documents till today. All this act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has also issued legal notice to OP-2, but they did not reply the same. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to issue Detail Marks Card and Certificate of complainant.

9                                    To controvert the arguments of the complainant, the ld counsel for OPs argued that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs. The function of the Ops is to conduct school examination. This is a statutory function and is not a commercial work. When the examination board conducts an examination in discharge of its statutory functions, it does not offer its services to any candidate. The examination fee paid by the students is not the consideration for availing any services but the charges are paid for the privilege for the participation in the examination. In the course of conduct of examination and evaluation of answer sheets or evaluation of marks sheets or certificates, there may be some negligence or deficiency, it does not convert the Board into a Service Provider for consideration nor convert the examinee into a consumer. As such, complainant is not the consumer of OPs. In support thereof, OPs have relied upon judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bihar School Education Board Vs Suresh Prasad Sinha 2009 (3) CPC page 217, wherein it is held that Examination Board being a statutory body, discharges its statutory duty in holding the examination-Mere charging of fee does not make the Board as service provider and thus, Board is not a Service Provider but a statutory body.  In case titled Alex J Rebello Vs Vice Chancellor, Bangalore University and Ors 2003 (II) Consumer Protection Judgment 7 (NC), it was observed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that while conducting examination, evaluating question papers and publishing results, University does not perform any services and candidate appearing in exams is not a consumer. In case titled as Additional Joint Secretary commissioner of Govt Examinations Vs Srinivasulu & anr 2011 (I) Consumer Protection Judgment 26 (NC), it was observed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that complainant can not be a consumer who appeared at SSC examination and OP can not be called ‘service provider’ and process of issuing certificates is a non commercial function.

10                                            Ld counsel for OPs argued that complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file this complaint and he has concealed material facts from this Forum and the present complaint is barred by his own act and conduct. The complainant appeared for the examination in March 2001 and his result was declared as RL (Eligibility). Copy of the gazette is Ex Op-4. Complainant never contacted with OPs regarding his result. It is for the first time in the year 2014, i.e. too by way of this complaint, complainant has raised the issue of declaration of his result, before it complainant never contacted OPs. Now, OP-2 has destroyed his record of examination upto Session 2010-11. Prior to destruction of record, they issued a public notice dt 25.07.2014 in three newspapers, the copy of notice is Ex OP-5 to 7. Now, at this belated stage, the result of complainant can not be declared as the OPs have already destroyed the record. The complainant has approached this Forum for declaration of his result after 14 years, which is undue delay and the reason for this delay is not justified by the complainant. So, present complaint may be dismissed.

  11                                   We have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties and have carefully perused the record and gone through the pleadings and evidence adduced by parties. Admittedly, the complainant appeared for examination held in March 2001 conducted by OPs and his result was not declared at that time. Now, by way of this complaint, complainant seeks directions to OPs to declare his result i.e. about after 14 years. This delay is unexplained by the complainant that why he kept mum for a long period and why he had not agitated this matter before OPs or other authority for this long period. So, we find this complaint being time barred as per Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act. The limitation for filing complaint before Consumer Forum is only two years. Moreover, the OPs contended that the complainant is not a consumer of OPs and in their support, they produced judgments decided by Hon’ble Apex Court and National Commission, New Delhi vide which they decided that Education Department is not a Service Provider and students are not consumers. We are fully convinced with the arguments advanced by OPs and the case law placed on record. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the present case and the same is hereby dismissed. In peculiar circumstances of the case, there is no order as to the costs. Copy of the order be issued to parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 6.07.2015

 

Member                Member          President         

(Parampal Kaur) (P  Singla)      (Ajit Aggarwal)