DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 8^th  day of July,  2022

Present      :   Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :   Smt.Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                   Date of Filing: 22/04/2021

     CC/81/2021

M.Gangadharan,

S/o.Murugankutty,

Pettikal veedu,

Thaloor, Koodallur Post,

Pallavur, Palakkad -678 688,                                      -          Complainant

(Party in person)  

                                                                                     Vs

 Controller of Examination,

Pareeksha Bhavan,

Calicut University,

Thenjipalam Post,

Malappuram – 673635                                               -           Opposite Party

(OP set exparte)

O R D E R 

By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. This is a complaint filed by a father for and on behalf of his daughter, who had registered with the Calicut University. As the daughter could not pass a paper she had applied for revaluation of the papers. The opposite parties had, with a delay of over 5 months after passing of the results of regular students, published the result of the complainant’s daughter.  Upon revaluation, the complainant’s daughter had received 36 marks more. This variation in marks is due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Due to this deficiency, the complainant’s daughter could not avail many opportunities and sought for compensation for the aforesaid deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
2. The opposite party remained exparte.
3. The complainant filed proof affidavit and Ext.A1 to A6 were marked on his part.
4. Be as it may, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had considered the question of applicability of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act vis a vis  alleged deficiency in service on the part of  a statutorily constituted educational body in its judgment dated 4/9/2009 in  Bihar School Examination Board V/s. Suresh Prasad Sinha (Civil Appeal No.3911 of 2003).

This Appeal arose from an Order of the District Commission as well as State Commission in Bihar taking cognizance in a complaint wherein deficiency in service was alleged against the Bihar School Examination Board, a statutory authority established under the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952. The observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, vis a vis the culpability of a Board against the Consumer Protection Act as stated under paragraphs 10 & 11 can be summarized as follows:

1. The Board is a statutory body whose one of the functions  is to conduct school examinations.
2. Its functions cannot be differentiated into partly administrative and partly statutory.
3. It does not offer its “services” to any candidate. The candidates are not hiring or availing any service from the Board for a consideration.
4. The examinations conducted by the Board are  to see if the candidate has imbibed sufficient knowledge to be fit to be declared as having sufficiently completed the course of education. 
5. The examination fees is not  a consideration for availing any service, but a charge paid for the privilege of participation in the examination.
6. Even if there is some negligence, omission or deficiency, it will not convert the Board into a service provider for a consideration, nor convert the examinee into a consumer.
7. Resultantly a complaint under Consumer Protection Act will not be maintainable as against the Board.

5. The opposite party herein is a University, a statutory body, discharging its function as is done by the Board in the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In view of the law propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as stated supra, we hold that the complaint is not maintainable as against the opposite party herein. The complaint is therefore dismissed.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties directed to bear their respective costs.

            Pronounced in open court on this the 8^th  day of July, 2022.

                                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                                             Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

        Sd/-

    Vidya.A

                        Member     

                               Sd/-

                                                                                               Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

 Ext.A1 –  Photocopy of identity card

Ext.A2 –  Photocopy of revaluation results.

Ext.A3 –  Photocopy of application for revaluation

Ext.A4 – Photocopy of receipt for revaluation fees

Ext.A5 – Photocopy of application for request for publication of revaluation results

Ext.A6 – Photocopy of fee receipt.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

 Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant

NIL

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party

NIL

Cost :  No costs allowed

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.