Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.16 seconds)Bihar School Examination Board vs Suresh Prasad Sinha on 4 September, 2009
In this context, the learned counsel for the appellant in Appeal.No.735/2012 relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha AIR 2010 Supreme Court 93 in which it was held that the school examination board is not a service provider and a student who takes an examination is not a consumer. Consequently complaint under the Consumer Protection Act will not be maintainable against the Board. When an examination board conducts an examination in discharge of its statutory functions, it does not offer its services to any candidate. 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. So the second opposite party appellant argues that remittance of Rs.500/- as per Ext.A5 is not consideration for availing any service of the second opposite party and accordingly the complaint is not maintainable under the Act against the second opposite party.
Surya Prakash Mahapatra vs Controller Of Examination Sumbalpur ... on 5 December, 2007
11. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Surya Prakash Mahapatra Vs Controller of Examinations, Sambalpur University & othrs AIR 2008 (NOC) 1275 (NCC) where in it was held that conduct of examination and declaration of result by an University is statutory duty and the University can not be taken to render service within the meaning of the Act. The District Forum slapped liability on the second opposite party as they failed to act properly and failed to exercise their powers which according to the District Forum was grave deficiency in service. But this conclusion overlooks certain other aspects as well. The second opposite party collected fees for preparing merit list of candidates eligible for admission under lateral entry scheme. There is no complaint at all against the preparation of the list. It appears from the contention of opposite parties 1 & 3 itself that the second opposite party was entitled to allot candidates as per agreement between the managements of self financing engineering colleges and the government. In fact the managements initially decided not to admit candidates under the lateral entry scheme. But when they later changed their mind allotment was duly made by the second opposite party. There is no allegation that the allotment was erroneous. The alleged deficiency in service happened there after. Even while directing appropriate action against opposite parties 1 & 3 the District Forum was not sure of the extent of power on the part of the second opposite party in this regard. So it can not be said that the second opposite party failed in its statutory duties. True no attempt was made to take any effective action with reference to the complaint of the complainant and the second opposite party seems to side with the management but this alone is not sufficient to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party in view of the limited role of selecting candidates and recommending them for admission. It follows that the District Forum erroneously passed order against the second opposite party but at the same time erroneously refused to order compensation against opposite parties 1 & 3.
1