1. Brief facts of the case of the complainant:

The complainant is a student who has completed his +3 Degree and he was a student of JNV, Boudh and has filed the present complaint against, Principal, JNV, Boudh and other 5 CBSC authorities. It is specifically pleaded that he had taken admission in JNV,Boudh as “Shishir Kumar Prusty” and accordingly appeared class 10^th Board Exam in the year,2011, bearing Roll NO.6102104/2011.In the same name, he had also appeared SSCE exam in the year 2013, having his Roll No.6601439 and accordingly he was issued with CBSE certificate by O.P No.5.

It is specifically averred that the spelling of his “surname” was wrongly mentioned in the call 10^th (CBSE), board certificate as “ PRUSTHY” instead of “prusty” and that such mistake in surname was detected at the time of form fill-up of final semester of +3 course, at the time of verification of documents .It is also averred that the complainant after knowing about the said spelling mistakes promptlyreported the matter to OP.No.1 and had taken all; possible steps for necessary correction, but in vain, it was rejected finally by the Board authority on the ground of delay. The complainant also submitted and explained at para 4 of his complaint regarding “cause of delay”, that is date of knowledge regarding mistake of “surname” in the Board certificate. In view of the above facts and circumstances, alleging deficiency in service, he sought for reliefs for damagesto the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and seeking a direction against O.Ps tomake necessary corrections of spelling in the surname of his class 10^th CBSE Board certificate vide Roll No.6102104.

2. Per contra, briefly in substances, the stand of O.Ps is that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and that totally denied and dispute allegation of defeicnery in service. It is specifically pleaded at para No.5 of written version that the complainant surname is found to be “PRUSTHY’ in the form, as filled up before examination by the complainant whereas during admission into Class VI, his name was entered in the admission register as “SHISHIR KUMAR PRUSTY’.The C.B.S.E, authority turned down his request for “correction” since he fails to approach within one year of the DDR(Date of declaration of result)pursuance to amended rule 69.1(ii)exam-bye- laws.

At the very outset, as submitted by Ld. Counsel for O.P No.1, it is settle law that imparting education by educational Institution cannot make such institutions service provider and students, taking education is “not a consumer”.

One of the bold argument set forth by Ld. Counsel for the O.Ps is that education is not a commodity and students taking education cannot be said to be a consumer, to substantiate his stand relied on Rajendra Kumar Gupta versus Swarup Public schoo-2021(1) CPJ (NC), 368

The Ld. Counsel for the O.Ps also submits that Educational Institutions do not fall within the ambit of the Forum/Commission as per CP.Act.1986.

The Ld. Counsel for the O.Ps vehemently submits for dismissal of the complaint in limine.

On the other hand Ld. Cousel for the petitioner submits that the relief as sought for is well within the preview of C.P.Act and the mistake as entered in the certificate regarding his surname is due to fault of the O.Ps and that the CBSE, authority is playing with the future of their own students in the guise of technicality and his request for necessary correction should not have been rejected unjustly merely on the ground of delay.

Regard being had to the submission of both parties and consideringthe evidence on record, further discussion on merit will not serve any purpose as such the issue asunder are material for arriving at a just decision.

1. Whether the complainant is a “consumer” and educational institution imparting education be covered under provision of C.P.Act 1986?

In this case, it is to note that O.P.No.1 is the Principal of JNV, Boudh which is affiliated to CBSE and offer free education to talented children from Class VI to XII.

After evaluating submission, documents as available on record and after considering the principle laid down in case of Manu Solanki and others Versus Vinayak Mission university 1(2020) CPJ 2010 wherein the large bench has interalia, held that educational institutions and activities undertaken during the process of pre admission as well as post admission do not come within the preview of the C.P.Act.1986.

Furthermore, Ld. Counsel for O.Ps has cited a decision of Gujarat State Commission decided on 8^th Oct, 2021 vide Appeal No.2018/224 in VJ Modi versus Bhumika Patel, wherein it is held that educational institution cannot be held to be service provider and and student cannot be said to be a consumer and that this commission has no jurisdiction to dealt with the matter pertaining to “deficiency of service in education”.

Further recently in a landmark judgment the Hon’ble N.C in Amruta Bharati versus

secy. Councel for India School and ors 2022 (4) CPR 304 N.C, reiterated the above principles.

Respectfully, following the aforesaid decision, I am of the considerate opinion that the complaint filed by the complainant does not come within the purview of the C.P.act, 1986 as such liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.

iv) Observation of the Commission-Though the Commission cannot grant the reliefs as sought fro due to lack of jurisdiction still to subserve ends of justice, interlia following observations are being made having persuasive value as under.

i) It is a fit case wherein benefit of sec.14 of limitation act be given to the complainant.

ii) The complainant is not at fault for the wrong entry of his surname in the board certificate since the O.Ps fail to prove such fact by documentary evidence through available with them. At the time of form fill-up the complainant was a minor as such duty is caste upon the school authority to see that everything has been fill-up correctly.

2. Denying simple correction assigning ground of delay as a cause may cause prejudice to a student which cannot be compensated in terms of money, the CBSE authority should take it to their good conscience.

                                                   ORDER

1. Considering the nature of dispute, there cannot be a question of deficiency in service and that the matter cannot be entertained under C.P.Act, 1986.

Accordingly the complaint is dismissed against the O.Ps on merit as

not maintainable.

2.    The complainant, an innocent student has suffered and is suffering   

having no fault and on good faith, put forth his grievance before this commission, so he is at liberty to file appropriate action before competent court having jurisdiction andthe time spent in the proceeding before this commission be excluded under section 14 of limitation act.

                                  That the parties shall bear their own cost.

                      Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.

     Final order is pronounced in open court on the 24^th January day of 2023 with seal and signature of this commission.