PRINCIPAL, LOYOLA HIGH SCHOOL PATNA vs BHUDEO NARAIN NAND KULIAR

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 11/12.7.94 passed by the District Forum, Patna in Complaint Case No. 349 of 94 in which the appellant here was the opposite party and the respondent here was the complainant before the District Forum.

THE facts of the case as put in by the complainant may be briefly noticed for the disposal of this appeal. One Amit Kumar who happens to be the son of the complainant was student of Class VIII during the Session 1993-94 in Loyola High School and he was not promoted to Class IX because he failed in two subjects. THE allegations of the complainant is that though other students have also failed in two subjects but they were promoted and thus he had been discreminated against by the Head Master of the school. On being noticed the opposite party - the Head Master of the school appeared and controverted the allegations made by the complainant stating inter alia that as Amit Kumar railed in three papers he was not promoted to Class IX and that other similarly situated students also were not promoted and by mistake it was mentioned in the written statement that Amit Kumar failed in three subjects. In his affidavit the opposite party stated that by mistake instead of three papers three subjects were typed in the written statement and inadvertently the mistake could not be corrected; and that Amit Kumar was not promoted to Class IX because he failed in the two papers of English and the Computer paper and similarly situated students were not promoted to Class IX.

The District Forum taking into consideration the allegations made by the complainant and the averments of the opposite party directed the opposite party to promote Amit Kumar to Class IX. The operative part of the impugned order reads as follows :- "xx xx xx"

AT the very outset it may be mentioned that neither such cases are maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act) nor such reliefs can be granted under the Act. The examinations are conducted and the results are published by the educational institutions not on the basis of hiring of services and therefore the complainant cannot be a consumer in respect thereof. Hence the case is not maintainable under the Act. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside and the complaint is dismissed. The respondent is directed to pay Rs. 250/- as cost to the appellant. Appeal allowed with costs.