Orissa

Rayagada

CC/122/2016

Santosh Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

The BSE - Opp.Party(s)

Self

21 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 122  / 2016.                                               Date.    21.  12   . 2017.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                          President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                        Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                   Member

 

Santosh Nayak, S/O: Basudev Nayak, Old bank street, Po: Tikiri, Dist: Rayagada,

 State:  Odisha.                                                          …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Cuttack.

2. The  Regional  Director, Board of  Secondary  Education, Berhampur(Ganjam).

3. The  Head Master,   UAN  Raju Girls High School, Laxmipur,  Dist: Koraput.                                                                                                                   ..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.P No.1 & 2  :- Set  exparte.

For the O.P. No.3:- In person.

                                                          J u d g e m e n t.

         

          The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non rectification of  H.S.C. original  certificate passed for the year  2012  which was wrongly issued  in favour of Sasmita  Nayak.

          In the instant case the copy of the complaint was referred to the O.P. No.1 & 2  directing to given  written version of the case.  After service of notice the O.P. No.1 & 2  failed to avail of the opportunity for filing  of the version of the case.  On number of dates he failed  to appear  on the version dates fixed. As the version of the case was not filed by the O.P. No.1 & 2  within the time frame given, we have no alternative  but to resort to Section -13(2)(b)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

                The O.P. No.3  appeared  in person  filed reply and prays the forum to drop the proceeding against the  O.P. No. 3.

                Heard  from the complainant and O.P. No.3.  Perused the record filed  by  both the parties.

                                                                                FINDINGS.

On perusal of the  record we observed the O.P.No. 3 on the date of hearing produced the rectified  H.S.C. certificate of   Sasmita Nayak  before the forum.  In turn Sasmita Nayak  received the above  rectified  original  H.S.C. certificate from this forum  with due acknowledgement  on Dt.12.11.2016.  Further  the complainant  filed a memo stating that to pay  compensation  and relax the 4 years age  limit   of the  candidate in any of the recruitment of admission.

To consider  the  above relief we perused the  Consumer Protection Act. 1986 and citation.

On perusal of  complaint petition we observed the complaint does not comes under the ambit  of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986   as she  is not a consumer and the O.P is no way  service provider who provides service for certain consideration. Further examinations fees are not consideration for providing service  to the students  in the shape of conducting examinations. The  definition  of  service and consumer as per the C.P.Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(o), is in respect of hiring of services  behind which there is profit earning motto by the service renderer. Since the Board does not render  any service  for profit earning purpose or for hire and is simply performing  statutory duties in  taking  examination, therefore, its function does not come  in the category of service as defined  in C.P. Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(d).    It is held and reported in C.P.R 2010(3) page No. 137   the hon’ble State  Commission, Chatisgarh where in observed  that conduct of examination  by Board does not constitute rendering  of service as defined in C.P. Act, 1986.

It is held and reported in C.P.R 2009(1) Page No. 85  the Hon’ble  State Commission, Mumbai where in observed  student who appears examination  conducted by  Board can not be held  to be consumer as defined U/S-2(i)(b) read with  Section 2(1)(o). Such person does not hire and avail services of Board for the consideration.

Towards the case of Surya Prakash Mohapatra  Vrs. Controller of Examination, Sambalpur University and others where in the  Hon’ble  Supreme Court observed that Conduction of examinations are all part of statutory duty of an Examination Board  and therefore, the same can not be said to be rendering service as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

The grievance of the complainant to pay  compensation  and relax the 4 years age  limit   of the  candidate in any of the recruitment of admission can be raised  before the appropriate court of law and not before this forum. We  do not  think  proper to go  into merit of this case.

Hence, the claim of the   complainant can not be accepted under the provisions of the C.P. Act. It is open to  complainant   ordinary remedy by way of appropriate  forum.       

So  to meet the  ends of justice    the following order is passed.

 

ORDER.

            In the resultant the complainant petition is dismissed inter alia   free to approach the court of competent  having  its jurisdiction.   Parties are left to bear their own cost.  Accordingly the case  is closed.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this    21^st.          Day of  December,   2017.

 

Presiding  Member.                               Presiding   Member.                                                               President