Counsel for the parties present. With the consent of both the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. `The Complainant had appeared in the 6th Semester of MCA Course in March, 2006. On 10.2.2007 a provisional certificate was issued by Opposite Party No.2 indicating that the Complainant had appeared in 5th and 6th Semester of MCA Course. The result of the Complainant was however not declared within reasonable time of 3 to 4 months after the Complainant had appeared in the examination. Therefore, the Complainant sent a legal notice to the present Appellant and subsequently filed a complaint before the State Commission. By impugned order, which is subject matter of challenge in this appeal, State Commission awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.1.25 lakhs in favour of the Complainant against the Opposite Parties for delay in declaration of result as also on account of harassment, besides mental torture and inconvenience. The Complainant was also held entitled to 9% interest on the said amount from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation as well as punitive damages to the tune ofRs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.5000/-. I have heard learned Counsel appearing on both sides. Learned Counsel for the Appellants after placing reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in Bihar School Examination Board V/s. Suresh Prasad Sinha JT 2009 (11) S C 541 submitted that the Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain such matters and the appeal be accordingly allowed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Complainant places reliance on judgement of the Apex Court in Buddhist Mission Dental College and Hospital V/s. Bhupesh Khurana and others (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 473. According to learned Counsel for the Respondent the subsequent judgement of the Apex Court, upon which reference has been placed by learned Counsel for the Appellant does not take into consideration the judgement in Buddhist Mission Dental College and Hospital (supra) and as such, the later judgement of the Apex Court in Bihar School Examination Board (supra) is per incurruim. He has drawn my attention to paragraph 35 and 36 of the judgement in the case of Buddhist Mission Dental College and Hospital V/s. Bhupesh Khurana and others (supra). In fact, the judgement in Buddhist Mission Dental College and Hospital V/s. Bhupesh Khurana and others (supra) operates in a different field altogether and is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case under consideration and there is no merit in the submission of learned Counsel for the Complainant. It was a case where students were admitted in college which had neither affiliation with the University nor it was recognised by Dental Council of India. In this case refund of fee and compensation for loss of two valuable years was allowed. The judgement which is directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case is Bihar School Examination Board V/s. Suresh Prasad Sinha (supra). In this case, the Apex Court directly dealt with a case of non-declaration of result by the Examination Board. The relevant paragraphs nos.10 and 21 of the said judgements are as under:- 10. The Board is a statutory authority established under the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952. The function of the Board is to conduct school examinations. This statutory function involves holding periodical examinations, evaluating the answer scripts, declaring the results and issuing certificates. The 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 the Examination Board conducts an examination in discharge of its statutory function, it does not offer its service to any candidate. Nor does a student who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, hires or avails of any service from the Board for a consideration. On the other hand, a candidate who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, is a person who has undergone a course of study and who requests the Board to test him as to whether he has imbibed sufficient knowledge to be fit to be declared as having successfully completed the said course of educational and if so determine his position or rank or competence vis-à-vis other examinees. The process is not therefore availment of a service by a student, but participation in a general examination conducted by the Board to ascertain whether he is eligible and fit to be considered as having successfully competed the secondary education course. The examination fee paid by the student is not the consideration for availment of any service, but the charge paid for the privilege of participation in the examination. 21. In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 3911/2003, these appeals stand allowed in terms of the said decision. The impugned orders of the Consumer Fora are set aside and the complaints filed by the respondents against the Board or University are held to be not maintainable. No costs. In view of the above position, the appeal is allowed and the order of the State Commission is hereby set aside. The complaint is ordered to be Dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
