The Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, with Justice Sanjay Kumar (President), Mr. Raj Kumar Pandey (Member), and Mr. Ram Prawesh Das (Member), reaffirmed that educational institutions providing education are excluded from the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. They dismissed an appeal concerning an attendance issue filed against the Bihar School Examination Board.
Key Details
The complainant’s son enrolled as a regular student in the science faculty at VM Inter College, Gopalganj for the academic session 2016-2018. The examinations for this session, conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna (“Board”), took place from January 11, 2018, to February 14, 2018. He received an admit card and participated in both the written and practical examinations. During these exams, he signed the attendance sheet and attended the practical exams for physics, chemistry, and biology. However, upon the publication of results by the Board, he was marked absent for the biology practical exam and subsequently declared unsuccessful.
The complainant and his son visited both the school and the board’s office, requesting verification of his attendance as recorded on the attendance sheet. However, no action was initiated in response. The headmaster further wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Board, confirming that the complainant’s son had attended the biology practical examination. Despite these efforts, the Board did not take any corrective measures. Frustrated by this situation, the complainant lodged a consumer complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gopalganj, Bihar (“District Commission”).
“In response, the Board argued that the complainant did not qualify as a consumer, and the Board itself did not provide any service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Commission subsequently dismissed the complaint. Unsatisfied with this decision, the complainant proceeded to file an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (‘State Commission’).
Findings of the Commission
The State Commission observed that the matter at hand had already been settled in legal precedent. Citing the case of Bihar School Examination Board vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha [2009 (8) SCC 483], it reiterated that examination boards do not fall within the ambit of service providers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Additionally, referring to the case of Monu Solanki vs. Vinayaka Mission University, it reaffirmed that educational institutions offering educational services are not covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Based on these precedents, the State Commission determined that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it upon initial consideration.
Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by
Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant
Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,
Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.
Human and Civil Rights Campaigner
President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in
YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum
NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWallet
WhatsApp +91 99877 43676