Bihar School Examination Board vs Suresh Prasad Sinha

3. It appears that a complaint was filed before the District Consumer Forum, Hazaribagh under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The complaint was filed by the respondent, Suresh Prasad Sinha on behalf of his minor son Rajesh Kumar. In the said complaint it was mentioned 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 to Rajesh Kumar Roll No.496A and this was communicated to the Board office at Patna. The result of Rajesh Kumar was not published in spite of several letters written by him and hence he had to re-appear in the Board Examination the following year, and thus he had to suffer a loss of one year allegedly due to the fault of the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the `Board'). The result of Roll No.496A was not declared and it is alleged that this was because Rajesh Kumar had been given another Roll number. Hence the complainant prayed for compensation from the District Consumer Forum.

4. In its written statement in reply the Board stated that the Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction in the matter as the complainant was not a 3 consumer, as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. It was also alleged that on the application of the examinee the strong room was searched and it was found that the serial number of his answer book of Advanced Maths did not tally with the serial number in the attendance sheet. While the answer book of the student found in the strong room was bearing serial number 148774, the attendance sheet serial number was 148744. Hence, the result was not published.

5. The District Consumer Forum found that the complainant had filed the Registration Receipt as well as the Admit Card, and the case of the complainant was admitted so far as appearance of Rajesh Kumar in the examination was concerned. It was held that if the serial number of the answer book did not tally with that which was noted in the attendance- sheet, that has to be explained by the Board and not by the student. Hence the District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint and ordered the Board to pay compensation of Rs.12,000/- with an interest of 12% to the complainant.

7. The appellant Board then filed a further appeal before the National Consumer Commission under Section 19 of the Act, which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 24.10.2002. Against the said impugned judgment and order this appeal has been filed by the Board under Section 23 of the Act.

(emphasis supplied)

(emphasis supplied)

19. For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the view that the Bihar School Examination Board is not rendering any `service' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned orders of the Consumer Fora are set aside. No costs.

C.A. Nos. 676/2006, C.A. No. 1739/2006, C.A. No. 1764/2006, C.A. No. 2236/2006, C.A. No. 2476/2006, C.A. No. 3718/2005 & C.A No.6032/2009 @ SLP(C) No. 2844/2006

20. Leave granted.

21. In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 3911/2003, these appeals stand allowed in terms of the said decision. The impugned orders 14 of the Consumer Fora are set aside and the complaints filed by the respondents against the Board or University are held to be not maintainable. No costs.

September 4, 2009.