Case: THE SECRETARY, MOC, NEW DELHI-1  Vs. M/S VINOD AND COMPANY

4. The facts, insofar as they are material, are that the respondent carried out exports from 1988 to 1993. The respondent applied for the grant of an REP licence in the f.o.b. value of Rs 6,16,116 for which it was entitled to a premium of 20 per cent on the amount of exports under the scheme. Since the scheme for the issuance of REP licence was discontinued, the premium of Rs 1,23,223 was not paid. The respondent received an intimation that the Additional Chief Controller of 1 Exim policy 2 Act Imports and Exports had passed an order on 3 September 1991 holding in abeyance the grant of premium from February 1988 to August 1992 which was further extended to 31 March 1993. The respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Committee of the Ministry of Commerce. The respondent made unsuccessful attempts for the release of the premium and was informed that the scheme had been closed as a result of which the claim could not be entertained5. This led to the institution of proceedings before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (District Forum) at Delhi. The District Forum allowed the claim by directing that an amount of Rs 1,23,223 be paid over to the respondent together with compensation for mental agony and towards legal expenses6. The appellants were set down ex-parte before the District Forum. Their appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) was rejected on 9 October 2006. This was confirmed in revision by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) on 4 April 20127. The principal issue that was canvassed before the SCDRC and in revision was that the consumer fora had no jurisdiction to entertain a consumer complaint on the ground that no service is rendered by the Union government when it provides incentives under the Exim policy.

Reasoning:
22. The objects of the policy are essentially to stimulate industrial growth by providing easy access to imported capital goods, raw materials and components, to substitute imports and promote self-reliance and to provide an impetus to exports by improving the quality of incentives. The Exim policy is an incident of the fiscal policy of the State and of its overall control over foreign trade. As an incident of its policy, the State may provide a regime of incentives. The provision of those incentives does not render the State a service provider or the person who avails of the incentives as a potential user of any service. The State, in exercise of its authority to utilise and collect revenue, puts in place diverse regulatory regimes under the law. The regime may provide for modalities for compliance, penalties for breach and incentives to achieve the purpose of the policy. The grant of these incentives does not constitute the State as a service provider24. In Bihar School Examination Board (supra) which was decided by a Bench of two judges, the issue was whether the Board of Examinations governed by state law is amenable to the jurisdiction of the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Answering the question in the negative, this Court held:12. 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, hire or avail 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-a-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 examination25. In the circumstances, it was held that the Board is not a service provider and a student who takes an examination is not a consumer26. We are of the view that by analogy, the same principle must govern the present case for the reasons that we have indicated.