JUDGMENT 14.10.2010 Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by complainant is directed against the order dated 25.8.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing No.479 of 2010 was dismissed in limine. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Forum. 3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant had taken his examination of LLM Part -1 vide Roll No.243536 in May,2009 and on receiving his DMC on 16.5.2010 he applied for re-evaluation on 17.5.2010 by depositing the requisite fee of Rs.250/- per subject. However, after about two months complainant received letter on 28.6.2010 from the Kurukshetra University returning the re-evaluation form without any reason. He then made representation (annexure C-5) to the OPs but no action was taken . Hence, alleging deficiency in service he filed complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to the university to do the re-evaluation of his papers besides compensation of Rs.15 lacs with interest and costs. 4. The learned District Forum after going through the complaint and hearing the complainant came to the conclusion that the complaint being baseless was not liable to be admitted for regular hearing and dismissed the same in limine. This is how feeling aggrieved, complainant has come up in this appeal. 5. We have heard the complainant who himself is an advocate and perused the file carefully. The only noticeable point of his arguments was that the OPs No.1 & 2 - On dot couriers & Cargo Ltd. were entrusted envelope containing the re-evaluation form for delivering the same to the Kurukshetra university but they withheld the envelope for about two months due to which university returned the re-evaluation form and other documents without re-evaluating his LLM-I papers. He stated that the compensation be granted against the courier agency as they failed to deliver the documents within time. 6. A perusal of the complaint file reveals that although ‘On dot courier & Cargo Ltd.’ has been arrayed as opposite party yet there is no allegation of deficiency of service leveled against the courier agency, nor any relief has been claimed against them. In the prayer clause of the complaint, it was prayed by the complainant that the opposite party be directed to do the re-evaluation of his papers under rules and he (complainant) be awarded compensation of Rs.15 lacs alongwith interest and costs. Thus, the relief was sought only against the Kurukshetra University and not against Courier agency. 7. In view of the latest law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in Bihar School Examination Board Vs Suresh Prasad Sinha 2009(3) CPC 217 (SC) the complaint filed by the complainant seeking directions to the Kurukshetra University to do re-evaluation of his papers is not maintainable, inasmuch-as he being an examinee is not a consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and at the same time board or university conducting examinations are not ‘service providers’ for any consideration. We deem it fit to reproduce the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme court contained in para-11 of the aforesaid judgment as under ; “ The object of the Act is to cover in its net, services offered or rendered for a consideration. Any service rendered for consideration is presumed to be a commercial activity in its broadest sense(including professional activity or quasi-commercial activity). But the Act does not intend to cover discharge of a statutory function of examining whether a candidate is fit to be declared as having successfully completed a course by passing the examination. The fact that in the course of conduct of the examination, or evaluation of answer-scripts, or furnishing of mark-sheets or certificates, there may be some negligence, omission or deficiency, does not convert the board into a service-provider for a consideration, nor convert the examinee into a consumer who can make a complaint under the Act. We are clearly of the view that the Board is not a ‘service provider’ and a student who takes an examination is not a ‘consumer’ and consequently, complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the Board. ” 8. Thus, in view of the above position complainant infact is not a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act qua Kurukshetra University so far as re-evaluation of his LLM-1 papers is concerned and on the other hand there is no allegation against the Courier agency, so no relief can be granted against them also. Consequently, the appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without prejudice to the right of complainant to seek remedy, if any, before the appropriate forum/court as admissible under law. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | | 
