National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Surya Prakash Mahapatra vs Controller Of Examination Sumbalpur ... on 5 December, 2007
Equivalent citations: I(2008)CPJ258(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant Shri Surya Prakash Mahapatra, a visually handicapped person, against the Controller of Examination, Sambalpur University and others.
2. It is the case of the complainant that he appeared for the examination of Bachelor of Education (B. Ed.) in the year 1991 connducted by the opposite party University, whose result was declared in the same year wherein the complainant was found 'fail' in the fail list and the opposite party had informed the complainant that he had not appeared in the 'guidance' and 'counselling paper' for which his name is in the fail list. Tine complainant kept approaching the opposite parties between 1991 and 2004 but they did not rectify the B. Ed. result. It was only on 21.8.2004 that the result was revised and the complainant was declared passed by Second Class. It is the case of the complainant that on account of long delay of publication of B. Ed, result, he has been deprived of getting a suitable Government job in the field of teaching for the last 14 years. It is in these circumstances, a complaint h as been filed before us with a prayer to grant Rs. 1.2 crore as compensation for loss of service for 14 years between 1991 and 2004. Notice was issued. The written version has been filed by the opposite parties denying any deficiency in service. Rejoinder has been filed by the complainant.
3. We heard the learned Counsel for the opposite parties and the complainant who is present in person. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in catena of judgments that when University holds the examination and declares the result, this they do as part of a 'statutory duty' cast upon them by law.
4. By now it is well settled that the Consumer Fora cannot go into the question of the deficiency, if any, with regard to the statutory duty performed by any statutory body or body constituted under a statute, which the opposite party is. It is only in respect of the administrative matters that the Consumer Fora can go into the question, but since declaration of result is part of the 'statutory duty', the opposite party cannot be taken to render service as defined under Section 2(1)(o) and the complainant in this regard cannot be fall within the definition of 'Consumer' as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, in view of which, this question of delay in declaration of result cannot be gone into by Consumer Fora.
5. It needs to be appreciated and has been held that the word 'service' and 'consumer' as appearing under Sections 2(1)(d) and 2(l)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, has to be construed to comprehend the 'consumer' and 'service', of commercial and trade-oriented nature only. Since the University does not render any service of this nature, they will not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act while performing the statutory duties. Hence this complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to seek his relief, if so advised as per law, before a competent Court other than Consumer Fora.
6. Supposing we proceed with the assumption that the complainant is a consumer even then this matter could not be dealt with in view of claim of compensation for a very long period of 14 years on the basis of the various disputed questions of facts which arise in the light of facts alleged by the complainant, it would require recording of voluminous evidence and various of-shoots of the matter. It is not possible to decide it in these summary proceedings.
7. In this regard, we feel fortified of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Munimahesh Patel IV (2006) CPJ 1 (SC) : 2006 CTJ 1073 (SC)(CP):
11. Proceedings before the Commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of....
13. The nature of the proceedings before the Commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate Court of Law not by the Commission.
8. The complainant shall be at liberty to take advantage by way of getting a set-off for the period spent before us, under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute .
9. This complaint stands disposed of in above terms.