HEAD MASTER, SARASWATI SISHU MANDIR vs Niranjan Das

THE opposite party in C.D. Case No. 35 of 1994 disposed of by the District Forum, Kendrapara is the appellant in this appeal. THE grievance of the complainant is that in the appellant''s school, the complainant wanted to give his daughter in admission. THEre was a test examination in which according to the complainant his daughter secured 97 marks. He deposited the required fees for admission. But when the admission took place his daughter was admitted to Section B of Class-1 instead of Section A of the same class. When he enquired about the matter, he was told that his daughter had secured 73 marks in English (Oral) and not 97 and had occupied Serial No. 27 in order of merit for which reason she has not been admitted to Section A of the said class. THE complainant has claimed that since his daughter was unwilling to read in Section B, there has been harassment and suffering for which he requires compensation and refund of fee.

THE District Forum, however, did not accept that the complainant''s daughter had secured 73 marks and therefore, held the appellant school was deficient in providing service to the complainant. THE District Forum directed that the respondent''s daughter be admitted in Section A of Class I provided she insists to continue her studies in the said school, otherwise she may be allowed to leave the school and get refund of the dues already paid by her father. It also awarded a cost of Rs. 100/- against the present appellant. Hence this appeal. The grievance of the complainant- respondent in this case is that the merit list prepared by the school was improper for the reason that his daughter should have secured higher position according to her performance in the test examination. But having not given due position to her daughter, the institution is deficient. The fee he has deposited was evidently not for the examination, but for taking admission in the school. It has been repeatedly held by the National Commission that an examinee who pays for examination is not a consumer as defined in the Act. But the aforesaid principle would not apply as no fee was even paid by the complainant for the test examination conducted by the school for the purpose of admission of his daughter. The test examination was conducted by the school for its satisfaction as to whether a candidate is found eligible to be admitted in the school. To which Section a candidate is to be admitted is not as a matter of right either of the candidate or anybody representing the candidate and even if there has been any illegality in admitting the complainant''s daughter in Section B of Class-I, his grievance cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum and therefore, the proceeding instituted before the District Forum was thoroughly misconceived. Consequently the order passed by the District Forum is without jurisdiction as it is beyond the scope of the provisions of the Act.

Even though certain reliefs were allowed by the District Forum in favour of the present respondent, we are going to allow this appeal as we do not consider it necessary for issuance of notice to the complainant for two reasons, the number one being that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Act and therefore, issuance of notice to the complainant would put him to unnecessary harassment and expenses. The second reason is that the grievances by lapse of time have been rendered infructuous as either the complainant''s daughter would have continued her studies in the said school either in Section A or in Section B or would have taken admission in any other school. For the aforesaid reasons we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order without issuing notice to the respondent. Appeal allowed.