2009 (9) TMI 930 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether a statutory School Examination Board comes within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Consumer Forums over statutory bodies.
2. Definition and applicability of 'consumer' and 'service' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
3. Precedential value and applicability of previous judgments.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Consumer Forums over Statutory Bodies:
The primary issue was whether a statutory School Examination Board falls within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Supreme Court examined whether the Board's functions, such as conducting examinations, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results, and issuing certificates, could be classified as 'services' offered to consumers. The Court concluded that these activities are statutory and non-commercial functions, and therefore, the Board does not offer 'services' to candidates. Consequently, the Board is not a 'service provider,' and students are not 'consumers' under the Act. Thus, complaints against the Board are not maintainable in Consumer Forums.

2. Definition and Applicability of 'Consumer' and 'Service' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
The Court referenced Section 2(1)(d) of the Act to determine the definition of a 'consumer,' which includes any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration. It further examined Section 2(o) defining 'service' and Section 2(g) defining 'deficiency.' The Court emphasized that the examination fee paid by a student is not a consideration for any service but a charge for the privilege of participation in the examination. The statutory function of the Board does not constitute a 'service' for consideration, and therefore, students do not fall under the category of 'consumers' who can seek redressal under the Act.

3. Precedential Value and Applicability of Previous Judgments:
The respondent's counsel relied on the decision in Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K. Gupta, arguing that statutory authorities charging a fee for services are amenable to the jurisdiction of consumer fora. The Court distinguished this case by clarifying that the activities of the Board are not commercial, professional, or service-oriented but purely statutory. The Court also discussed the principles of precedential value, emphasizing that judgments must be read in the context of their specific facts and should not be mechanically applied to different factual situations. The Court reiterated that a decision is a precedent on its own facts and should not be cited for propositions without considering the factual background and reasoning.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the Bihar School Examination Board is not rendering any 'service' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned orders of the Consumer Fora were set aside. The complaints filed by the respondents against the Board were held to be not maintainable. The Court also applied this decision to similar pending appeals, setting aside the orders of the Consumer Fora in those cases as well. No costs were awarded.