Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha
(2009) 8 SCC 483
JUDGES: R.V. Raveendran and Markandey Katju
Date of Decision: 04-09-2009
FACTS:-
Suresh Prasad Sinha (Respondent) on behalf of his minor son Rajesh Kumar filed a complaint against the Bihar School Examination Board on the ground that Rajesh Kumar appeared in the Bihar Secondary School Examination in 1998. Rajesh Kumar and another student Sunil Kumar Singh were allotted the same Roll No. 496. Hence, the Centre Superintendent allotted Roll No. 496A to Rajesh Kumar and this was communicated to the Board office at Patna. However, the result of Rajesh Kumar was not published in spite of several letters written by him and thus he had to re-appear in the Board Examination the following year. Consequently, he had to suffer a loss of one year allegedly due to the fault of the Bihar School Examination Board. On the other hand, Board stated that the Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction in the matter as the complainant was not a consumer, as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.
ISSUE:-
Whether a statutory School Examination Board comes within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act?
JUDGMENT:-
The definitions of the terms `service’ and `deficiency’ are given under Clauses (o) and (g) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act. According to the definition of a ‘consumer’ in Section 2(d) of the Act, a person who hires or avails any services for a consideration, is a consumer. The following category of service-availors will not be consumers: (i) persons who avail any service for any commercial purpose; (ii) persons who avail any free service; and (iii) persons who avail any service under any contract of service. A consumer is entitled to file a complaint under the Act if there is any deficiency in service provided or rendered by the service-provider.
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 “services” 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-à-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.
The object of the Act is to cover in its net, services offered or rendered for a consideration. Any service rendered for a consideration is presumed to be a commercial activity in its broadest sense (including professional activity or quasi-commercial activity). But the Act does not intended 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 there may be some negligence, omission or deficiency in the course of conduct of the examination, or evaluation of answer-scripts, or furnishing of mark-sheets or certificates, 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. The Board, as such, is not carrying on any commercial, professional or service-oriented activity.
HELD:-
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.
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
