Aneesa Khatoon vs Board of High School And Intermediate

-THERE are two connected appeals arising out of judgment and order dated 14.6.1994 passed by the District Forum, Nainital. The Board of High School and Intermediate has filed the appeal for quashing the amount of compensation as awarded by the District Forum while Smt. Aneesa Khatoon has filed the appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Since both the appeals arise out of one judgment and order, therefore, both are taken together for disposal. Copy of the judgment shall be placed in the records of each of the appeals.

THE brief facts of the case are that Smt. Aneesa Khatoon (hereinafter called the complainant) had appeared in the Intermediate Examination in the year 1990 as a private candidate. She has taken Urdu as an optional subject. Her result was not declared because her result was not complete. She made inquiry from the Board (hereinafter called the appellant), it was revealed that her marks for Urdu have not been received and she should contact District Inspector of Schools. She contacted District Inspector of Schools, Zonal Secretary and others but till 24.4.1991 her result was not declared. THEn she gave the notice under Section 80 of C.P.C., which was received by the opposite parties. THE Zonal Secretary of the Board of High School and Intermediate Examination informed that he has submitted the result to the District Inspector of Schools on 12.7.1990. THEn the complainant approached the Principal of the college who wrote a letter to the District Inspector of Schools. On 23.12.1991 the District Inspector of Schools again informed that her result has not been obtained. It is alleged that due to non-declaration of her result, she has to suffer one-year loss and she claimed compensation for that. The appellants admitted that the complainant appeared as a private candidate but her result could not be declared because her marks for Urdu were not received. It is said that the Board has sent the result to the District Inspector of Schools on 12.7.1990 and there is no deficiency of service on their part. After taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them the learned Forum held that there was deficiency in service by the appellant, therefore, allowed the compensation of Rs. 2,000/- besides cost of litigation of Rs. 500/-.

Being aggrieved by this order, both the parties have filed separate appeals. One for enhancement by the complainant and the other by the Board for setting aside the order.

WE have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and gone through the records. The first question, which was raised by the appellants, is that the complainant was not a consumer. It was argued that the Education Board is a statutory body and appearing in the examination is not a consumer dispute. By being a statutory body everybody has started seeking exemption but the law is not so helpless. The complainant has definitely deposited the examination fees. This aspect was not raised by either of the parties that she has paid nothing for appearing in the examination. She has paid consideration for appearing in the examination and she has appeared in the examination. The Forum or the State Commission will not sit in the judgment and discretion of the Board in declaring the candidate successful or fail according to her merit but the Forum or the Commission will definitely look to the administrative aspect of the case. The candidate appeared in the examination, therefore, she has a right to get her marks. The statutory body or the Board was free to award her zero marks. WE have got no jurisdiction to enter into the discharge of their functions by awarding higher marks, less marks but if the answer book has not been examined and her result has been detained due to the neglect or negligence of the department then the Forum will definitely look to it because that is a matter of deficiency in their service. Statutory bodies are not immune from the ambit of consumer disputes. Their discharge of function cannot be questioned but if there is any negligence or failure on their part that can be examined by the Consumer Forums and to this aspect the judgment of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=AIR 1994 SC 787, is a landmark judgment. It has been held in this ruling that "A Government or semi-Government body or a local authority is as much amenable to the Act as any other private body rendering similar service. In absence of any indication, express or implied there is no reason to hold that authorities created by statute are beyond purview of the Act. When Banks advance loan or accept deposit or provide facility of locker they undoubtedly render service. A State Bank or nationalized Bank renders as much service as private bank. No distinction can be drawn in private and public transport or Insurance Companies. Even the supply of electricity or gas, which throughout the country is being made mainly by statutory authorities is included in it. The legislative intention is thus clear to protect a consumer against services rendered even by statutory bodies. The test, therefore, is not if a person against whom complaint is made is a statutory body but whether the nature of the duty and function performed by it is service of even facility". The girl has appeared in the examination in the year 1990. Her result has not been declared for about one and a half years. We have nothing to say that she should have been declared successful. But at least every person will say that whether she is pass or fail, her result should have been immediately declared. According to the Board, the result was sent to the District Inspector of Schools on 12.7.1990 itself. The District Inspector of Schools even in November, 1991 told that he never received the result. There is administrative failure either on the part of the Board or the Inspector of Schools. Both are the parts of the same institution which is said to be Government which is being declared statutory body by the appellants to refuse the relief to the complainant.

IN the ruling in Parveen Rani v. Punjab School Education Board, III (2003) CPJ 164 (NC), it was held by the National Commission that where Mark Sheet or certificate is delayed, that is not a consumer dispute. Here in this case the question is not of delay but is of total neglect of duty in supplying the marks at the time of declaration of the result. IN the ruling in Controller of Exam., Himachal Pradesh University v. Sanjay Kumar, I (2003) CPJ 273 (NC), the National Commission has very clearly held that, "It is not the intention of the Commission to exclude even the administrative aspects relating to education from the definition of service. This aspect has to be seen to be falling within the definition of service. IN the present case, deficiency in service was seen in the form of non-supply of Roll Number to the complainant. Since ''Roll Number'' document is the authority for an examinee to be admitted in the Examination Hall, depriving the complainant of the same at the right time is not the same as marking or valuation of papers announcing the results or rechecking of marks or holding of examinations. The facts of the case are different from the facts of the cited cases. Hence, we find that the petitioner cannot take support from them. Non-supply of Roll Number in time to enable the complainant to write the paper is a case of deficiency in service. We see no ground to interfere with the orders of the State Commission which is upheld". Likewise in this case total non-supply of Mark Sheet or result is administrative failure by the Board and the appellants are bound to compensate the complainant. The compensation as awarded by the learned Forum is on the lower side. But the learned Forum was also conscious of the fact that the next year the complainant has already appeared in the examination and has passed it. She was also a married lady. She has not to make her future in examinations, etc. At least there is no allegation for the loss of one year in which she could not appear in the competitive examination or could not continue her further studies. In these circumstances, the compensation as awarded by the learned Forum cannot be said to be unjustified. There is no question of its enhancement. ORDER Both the appeals are hereby dismissed. Cost throughout shall be easy. Appeals dismissed.