COMPLAINT RESTORED ON: 16.08.2010
DISPOSED ON: 09.12.2010
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
DATED THIS THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.32/2010
Complainant | Sri. H.B. Nagabhushan, S/o H.C. Bommalingaiah, Aged about 38 years, R/at Heggunda Village and Post, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural Dist. – 562 111. Advocate: Sri. G.R. Sheshadri V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTY | Secretary, Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board, 6th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore – 560 003. 2nd Addl. Dist. Govt. Pleader: Sri. Suresh |
O R D E R
SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant filed this complaint U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P.) to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
2. The case of the complainant is to be stated in brief is that:
The complainant’s minor daughter Kum. H.N.Sridevi had taken SSLC exam under the OP in year 2008-09 in Chethana Vidya Mandhira High School, Tumkur District. The valuation of the exam answer paper was done by OP and announced total marks as 526. The complainant’s daughter being not satisfied with the marks in the subject of Hindi, applied for the revaluation of the same. Immediately after the earlier result, complainant filed the application for P.U.C. admission for his daughter in Sarvodaya Education Trust, Tumkur. On 22.05.2009 the institution announced the merit list for free seat based on the different categories and caste. The complainant belong to 3A category, the cut off marks to his category was 549. Due to this the complainant’s daughter could not get free seat on the basis of merit, the complainant got admitted his daughter under the management quota by paying Rs.20,000/- on 26.05.2009. After the revaluation OP sent a letter dated 15.06.2009 to the complainant’s daughter and to her school informing that she has secured extra 25 marks in the subject of third language Hindi. After inclusion of these extra marks the total marks become 551. If the same extra marks had come at the time of the admission to the college; the complainant’s daughter could have got a free seat and there was no need to pay any amount of Rs.20,000/-. It is due to the OP’s negligence and malfunction, the complainant had to suffer mentally and had to bear more expenses and paid huge amount to get seat to his daughter. Hence the complainant is seeking necessary reliefs to compensate the loss of Rs.20,000/-.
3. On appearance, OP filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable. The Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board is not a ‘Service Provider’ and a student who takes an examination is not a ‘Consumer’ and consequently, the complaint is not maintainable against the OP. It is admitted that after the revaluation the complainant’s daughter secured extra 25 marks, accordingly valuation fee of Rs.700/- is refunded. Thus it is prayed to dismiss the complaint as not maintainable.
4. Both the parties filed affidavit evidence.
5. OP filed written arguments. Arguments on both sides heard. The Point for consideration is: “Whether the complainant is a ‘consumer’ and OP is a ‘service provider’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and complaint is maintainable?”
6. We record our findings in the “Negative” for the following:
R E A S O N S
7. At the out set it is not at dispute that the complainant’s minor daughter by name Kum. H.N. Sridevi had taken SSLC exam under the OP Karnataka Secondary Examination Board in the year 2008-09. The SSLC result was declared and the complainant’s daughter secured total marks as per the result 526. After revaluation she secured extra 25 marks in the subject of third language Hindi. As per the Board Rules if any candidate score more than 6 marks in the revaluation, the valuation fee will be refunded. Accordingly OP refunded the valuation fee of Rs.700/-. The complainant cannot become a Consumer to maintain the complaint on the allegation of deficiency in service. OP is not a ‘service provider’. In Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha Civil Appeal No.3911/2003, the Apex Court while dealing with identical matter at para – 10 page 6 held:
“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 education; and if so, determine his position or rank or competence vis – 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 completed 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.”
“In 2010(1) CCC 497 (NS) Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kota Open University Versus Vijay Shankar Sharma considered the points: whether in carrying out function of conducting examination, evaluating answer papers and publication of results, the University performed “services” for consideration and candidate who appeared at the exams was a “person” who can be construed to have availed “services” of University, for consideration. It was held that while collection of fee for holding classes is a ‘service’ rendered by the educational institutions, the rest are statutory functions not depending on contract or hiring of ‘service’ of educational institutions.”
The principles laid down in above two cases clearly goes to show that the complainant cannot be considered as ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act. Payment of examination fee cannot be a consideration for availing the service; as such OP is not a ‘service provider’. Therefore the complaint is not maintainable.
8. The learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the II (1992) CPJ 807 A.P.J. School Versus K.L. Galhotra wherein it was held that imparting education is a ‘service’ within the meaning of the ACT. The principles laid down in that said case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case. OP – Board is not imparting any education, but only conducting the examination. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant dismissed as not maintainable. Considering the nature of dispute no order as to cost.
Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 9th day of December 2010.)
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Snm:
