PER SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

                As alleged in the complaint, the Complainant in the OPs University had appeared twice for the examination of Master of Philosophy in English but both the times, she was wrongly marked absent by the OPs University vide statement Annexure now marked C-3 for the month of June, 2009 and Annexure now marked C-4 for the month of Dec, 2009 and when she inquired the matter from the OPs University, it was told to her that her answer booklets have been misplaced by them.  She had even got issued a legal notice to the OPs University on 05.08.2010 vide Annexure now marked as C-6 with a request to take necessary action regarding the above fact but all in vain. Hence this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.                Complainant led evidence in support of her contentions.

3.                We have perused the record as to whether the complaint is to be admitted for regular hearing or not.  We are of the opinion that the present cannot be admitted for regular hearing due to the reasons mentioned below.

4.                Before going into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to mention that that above facts show that the complainant through the present complaint is seeking relief against from the OPs University with respect to the absent marked in the examination of Master of Philosophy in English for which she had appeared in Jun, 2009 and Dec, 2009 in the OPs University.  In our opinion, the present complaint does not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.  Here we can refer to the judgment of Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha-IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC) in which it was held that a university, board and/or an educational institution in conducting any examination, evaluating answer papers, announcing results thereof and thereafter rechecking marks of a candidate on an application made by the concerned candidate, is not performing any ‘service’. Hence the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ and the OPs are not a ‘service provider’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint is thus liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

5.                It is pertinent to mention here that the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has a statutory obligation to have a preliminary screening as to whether the complaint filed before it is maintainable. The only requirement is that the complaint should not be rejected unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the complainant, which in the present case has been provided. The law on this point is very much settled and in the decision given by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Fon-Ess India (P) Ltd. Vs. Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Original Petition No.19405 of 2000, decided on 14th July, 2006 and reported as 2007 CTJ 8 (Kerala High Court) (CP) wherein it has been specifically held that admission of a complaint before a District Forum or the State/ National Commission and appeal before the State/National Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not automatic. The Forum/Commission has to consider the maintainability before admitting it and issue its notice to the opposite party/respondent.

6.                Therefore, in view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the OPs are not a service provider, therefore, the complaint is accordingly dismissed in limine.

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.