Dr.

Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University

Lucknow

Subject: Rough Draft of Consumer Protection Law

Topic: Deficiency in Educational Services

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Ms. Neetu Bhawna
Roll. No. 44
Section A
Semester VII
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION
2. DEFICIENT SERVICES
 Service: Supreme Court analysis of definition
 Doctrine of Commercial purpose not applicable
 Amenability of public authorities to jurisdiction under consumer legislation
 Test of "deficiency"
 Impossibility
 Privity of contract

3. IMPARTING EDUCATION FOR CONSIDERATION - AMBIT OF SERVICE

 Element Of 'Consumer' Essential
 Education As Service

4. SPECIFIC CASES
 Flaws in Evaluation and delay in issuing the Mark Sheet
 Trapped by a Fraudulent Institute
 Incorrect Results declared by the University
 False Promise of Job Placement
 MBA Degree denied by the University
 State banned to Enter
 No Co-ordination between two sister concerns
 Beware of Misleading Advertisements by Scamsters
 Student leaves the Course Mid-way

5. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

6. REFERENCES
INTRODUCTION
The demand for professional education has risen steeply in the last few years. This cannot be
met fully by state-funded or state-aided institutions alone. This is why a new category of
private, self-financing institutions have registered a phenomenal growth. They offer courses
in engineering and technology, computer, medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, management,
teacher education and law, for which there is great demand. Many of these institutions are
deficient in matters like infrastructure, competent faculty and even a congenial campus
environment.
Hence there arises a need for both students and their parents to be aware of their rights and
undertake comprehensive assessment of the infrastructure facilities and validity of the
courses before committing their hard-earned money to such institutes.
The Supreme Court has observed that education has never been commerce in this country.
Making it one is opposed to the ethos, traditions and sansakars of this nation. The argument
to the contrary has an unholy ring to it. Imparting of education has never been treated as a
trade or business in this country since times immemorial. It has been treated a religious duty.
Commercialization of education has now compelled students and their parents to be cautious
about the educational institutions.
In today's times when students seek admission to schools, colleges, institutes, universities and
computer training/teaching centres, they have to ensure that they do not commit mistakes by
assuming that everything that is mentioned in the brochures or advertisements is correct.
Many times misleading advertisements have been put out by these institutes wherein
misleading statements regarding affiliation to a recognized university, institute are made in a
disguised manner almost like "make believe" statements. Gullible students and enthusiastic
parents are taken for a ride when the students lose couple of years studying in such
institutions as those courses are not recognized and the years spent in these institutions have
no value in respect of recognition for further studies or jobs.
Another important issue is that while taking admissions in a hurry, both parents and students
do not make correct inquiries because at that moment getting the admission is of paramount
important. The demands made in these Schools, colleges, institutions, universities are such
that people have no choice but to pay whatever amount is being demanded by them, in any
manner, i.e. hefty donations. Students pay security deposit and costs like the high tuition fee,
sports fee etc. But what parents do not know is that many institutions are adding hidden costs
like building charges and development charges. They collect huge amount in the form of
advertisement in souvenir which parents are compelled to pay. Today, education has become
a full-fledged business preposition.
Imparting education is invaluable contribution to the country but, undue advantage is being
taken through dubious and devious methods that should be brought to light by vigilant
consumer. Students and parents who pay money in return of service in education, must not
accept the wrong doings of schools/colleges/institutions/universities which have taken undue
advantage of this almost monopolistic situation.
DEFICIENT SERVICES
A complaint can be filed under the Act in respect of unsatisfactory services. If the forum is
convinced that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are
proved, it can provide any of the applicable types of remedy specified in section 14. The
consumer has to prove that the services suffered from a deficiency. The term "service" is
defined in section 2(1) (o) as follows:
"service" means service of any description which is made available to potential users and
includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance,
transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing
construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but
does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal
service
The term deficiency is defined in section 2(1) (g) as follows:
" deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature
and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the
time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a
contract or otherwise in relation to any service

Service: Supreme Court analysis of definition

In its decision in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K.Gupta1 the Supreme Court
examined the scope of the term "service" in the context of a consumer protection legislation.
Justice Sahai proceeded as follows:
"It (definition of consumer) is in three parts. The main part is followed by inclusive clause
and ends by exclusionary clause. The main clause itself is very wide. It applies to any service
made available to potential users. The words 'any' and 'potential' are significant. Both are of
wide amplitude. The word 'any' dictionarily means 'one or some or all'. In Black's Law
Dictionary it is explained thus, 'word 'any' has a diversity of meaning and may be employed
to indicate 'all' or ,every' as well as 'some' or 'one' and its meaning in a given statute depends
upon the context and the subject- matter of the statute". The use of the word 1 any' in the
context it has been used in clause (o) indicates that it has been used in wider sense extending
from one to all. The other word 'potential' is again very wide. In Oxford Dictionary it is
defined as 'capable of coming into being, possibility'. In Black's Law Dictionary it is defined
as "existing in possibility but not in act. Naturally and probably expected to come into
existence at some future time, though not now existing; for example, the future product of
grain or trees already planted, or the successive future installments or payments on a contract
or engagement already made." In other words service which is not only extended to actual
users but those who are capable of using it are covered in the definition. The clause is thus
very wide and extends to any or all actual or potential users. But the legislature did not stop
there. It expanded the meaning of the word further in modem sense by extending it to even
such facilities as are available to a consumer in connection with banking, financing etc. Each
of these are wide-ranging activities in day to day life. They are discharged both by statutory

1
(1994) 1 SCC 243 at 255
and private bodies. In absence of any indication, express or implied there is no reason to hold
that authorities created by the 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 nationalised 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 or even facility."
In Ravinder Singh v. Maharshi Dayanand University2, although it was held that education
shall fall within the definition of service, the reference was being answered in regard to
holding of examination and declaration of the result, which was held to be a service. Even in
the educational institutions of the universities whether after payment of fees etc, if such
institution defaults in its statutory duties as of holding of the examinations and declaration of
results or imparting of training for which the fee had been accepted, in those cases, it can be
said that such students may be called as 'consumer', but not in each and every dispute
between the student and the institutions, it can be held that such students can fall under the
definition of consumer and the institution under service.

Doctrine of Commercial purpose not applicable

The complainant alleged that he purchased flour mill machinery from the respondent and
paid Rs. 25,000 for installation of the machinery. The District Forum and the State
Commission held him to be not a consumer as he did not plead that the service was rendered
to him for his self-employment and for earning his livelihood. In the revision, it was held by
the National Commission that the Fora below had not considered that part of the contract
which related to rendition of services. There is no distinction between commercial and non-
commercial uses for which services are rendered or to be rendered. There was clearly a
deficiency in service. The complainant was entitled to refund of Rs. 25,000 as well as Rs.
14,000 representing the claimant's extra expenditure together with interest at the rate of 15%
p.a. from the date of purchase till the date of payment.3

Amenability of public authorities to jurisdiction under consumer legislation

The Supreme Court examined the question of amenability of public authorities to the
jurisdiction created by the Act and concluded that the Act was applicable in full force to all
public authorities which are rendering services or delivering goods to the society. The matter
before the court was Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K.Gupta4 R.M.Sahai, J.
proceeded as follows:
"This takes us to the larger issue if the public authorities under different enactments are
amenable to jurisdiction under the Act. It was vehemently argued that the local authorities or

2
(1997) III CPJ 36

3
Surya Flour Mill v. New India Mfg Co Ltd. (2002) 1 CPJ 79 (NC)
4
(1994) 1 SCC 243 at 255-256
government bodies develop land and construct houses in discharge of their statutory function,
therefore, they could not be subjected to the provisions of the Act. The learned counsel urged
that if the ambit of the Act would be widened to include even such authorities it would vitally
affect the functioning of official bodies. The learned counsel submitted that the entire
objective of the Act is to protect a consumer against malpractices in business. The argument
proceeded on complete misapprehension of the purpose of Act and even its explicit language.
In fact the Act requires provider of service to be more objective and caretaking. It is still
more so in public services. When private undertakings are taken over by the Government or
corporations are created to discharge what is otherwise State's function, one of the inherent
objectives of such social welfare measures is to provide better, efficient and cheaper services
to the people. Any attempt, therefore, to exclude services offered by statutory or official
bodies to the common man would be against the provisions of the Act and the spirit behind it.
It is indeed unfortunate that since enforcement of the Act there is a demand and even political
pressure is built up to exclude one or the other class from operation of the Act. How ironical
it is that official or semi-official bodies which insist on numerous benefits, which are
otherwise available in private sector, succeed in bargaining for it on threat of strike mainly
because of larger income accruing due to rise in number of consumers and not due to better
and efficient functioning claim exclusion when it comes to accountability from operation of
the Act. The spirit of consumerism is so feeble and dormant that no association, public or
private spirited, raises any finger on regular hike in prices not because it is necessary but
either because it has not been done for sometime or because the operational cost has gone up
irrespective of the efficiency without any regard to its impact on the common man. In our
opinion, the entire argument found on being statutory bodies does not appear to have any
substance. 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. Truly speaking it would be a
service to the society if such bodies instead of claiming exclusion subject themselves to the
Act and let their acts and omissions be scrutinised as public accountability is necessary for
healthy growth of society."
Section 1(4) of the Consumer Protection Act lays down that save as otherwise expressly
provided by the Central Government by notification, Consumer Protection Act shall apply to
all goods and services.
Universities are the centres of education and they provide one of the most essential and
important services to the citizens of the country namely education. They prescribe several
courses of study, conduct examinations and award degrees. They collect fees for allowing
students to appear for examination, for issuing provisional certificates and final degrees at the
time of convocation. The fact that the universities are statutory bodies does not render their
services any less than the 'services' as defined in the Act. Nor does it go outside the pale of
the Act in the absence of any notification issued by the Central Government exempting the
services of the universities from the purview of the Act under section 1(4). A student who
appears for the University examinations and pays necessary fees thereof certainly hires the
services of the university for consideration and is a consumer within the meaning of section
2(1) (d) (ii) of the Act.

Test of "deficiency"
The Supreme Court in its decision in Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines5 had
the opportunity to explain the nature of the test for ascertaining deficiency in service, the
difference between tortuous acts and deficiency in service and the questions of onus of proof.
A passenger by air was subjected to security check and verification of his visa before
departure of the flight. In between departure and destination (in Germany) his papers were
again checked because of some suspicions. The bona fides of the repeated checking were not
in doubt, and, therefore, there was no deficiency in service inspite of the fact that the flight
was delayed in its arrival at destination and the passenger had to suffer financial loss,
harassment and mental torture. The facts of the case were as follows:
The appellant-complainant was a partner of a Jaipur-based firm engaged in import of rough
emeralds and export of cut and polished emerald jewellery. In order to attend his business
commitments he had to reach New York on 18-10-1991. The appellant was informed by his
travel agent that the earliest available flight was KLM Flight No. KL-872 departing New
Delhi at 0525 hours on 18-10-1991 with stopover at Amsterdam and that he could catch the
connecting flight KL-640 departing Amsterdam for New York at 1315 hours from Schiphol
Airport which was to reach New York at 1515 hours at JKF Airport. He was issued ticket for
Delhi-Amsterdam-New York-Amsterdam-Delhi sectors for a certain amount. He obtained a
US visa. On 18-10-1991 he reported at the KLM counter at the airport at New Delhi where
his travel documents were checked. Finding no fault with any document, the complainant was
permitted to board KLM Flight No. KL-872 to Amsterdam. Simultaneously, with a view to
reach New York earlier, he got himself booked on TWA-815 for journey from Amsterdam to
New York while he continued to be booked at KL 641 also to New York from Amsterdam.
On reaching Amsterdam on 18th October, 1991 at 1015 hrs. Local time, he approached the
KLM counter to know the location of TWA counter because he had been booked on the
TWA Flight No. TWA 815 as was confirmed at Delhi and for which appropriate sticker had
been placed on his KLM Ticket. At the KLM counter the complainant was asked about his
US visa. When shown, the lady attending the KLM counter is stated to have conceived
suspicion about the gaminesss of the visa requiring verification. The complainant submitted
that there was no reason, justification or occasion for being subjected to verification
procedure by KLM for the second time at Amsterdam because he had been cleared for travel
at Delhi. The ground staff at Amsterdam was requested to institute proceedings for
verifications as expeditiously as possible but the said staff was wilfully and consciously
negligent which, according to the complainant, constituted "deficiency in service" within the
meaning of the Act entitling him to claim damages. There was delay of about three hours in
the institution of verification procedure. He was booked on a return flight to Delhi leaving
Amsterdam on Sunday the 20th October, 1991. He was virtually confined at the Airport and
not permitted to go outside. The complainant then is stated to have contacted directly a senior
official of the KLM at about 1300 hrs. and explained to him his predicament. The official
examined the US Visa and found the same to be in order. He, however, observed as doubts
have been expressed, he will follow the standard procedure of sending the passport of the
appellant to the US Embassy at Amsterdam for verification which would take about three
hours. He advised the complainant to return to the counter at 1600 hrs. When he returned
back at the counter the complainant was informed that his Visa had been found valid and
5
(2000) 1 SCC 66
authentic. The complainant then sought and was placed on the first available KLM flight to
New York being KL 643 which departed from Amsterdam at 1800 hrs. and reached New
York at 2000 hrs. American time on the same day. On account of the exhaustion, both mental
and physical, the complainant alleged that he developed 103 degree temperature during the
flight and was subjected to extreme depression. On reaching New York, the complainant
could not locate his baggage which had arrived before him. While waiting for his baggage,
the complainant phoned up one of the partners of M/s Real Gems at his residence and was
informed that as the cost of retaining of consignment of 100,000 Carats of Brazilian Emerald
Roughs was prohibitively high they could not retain the parcel beyond that day, and that it
had been sold to another buyer. On account of the acts of commission and omissions of the
respondents, the appellant had to suffer the business loss besides being subjected to mental
tension and torture. On his return, the appellant filed a complaint against the respondent
Company as well as against TWA before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
claiming certain amounts together with interest on account of the delay in the journey,
emotional distress, nervous shock, pain and suffering, medical and transport expenses
allegedly caused by the negligence and deficiency of service of the respondent.
The National Commission dismissed the complaint. His appeal against the decision to the
Supreme Court was also dismissed. The Supreme Court proceeded as follows:
In view of the definition of "service" and "deficiency" in sections 2(1) (o) and 2(1) (g) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing
fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of
performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or
otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon
the person who alleges it. The complainant has, on facts, been found to have not established
any wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent.
The deficiency in service has to be distinguished from the tortuous acts of the respondent. In
the absence of deficiency in service the aggrieved person may have a remedy under the
common law to file a suit for damages but cannot insist for grant of relief under the Act for
the alleged acts of commission and omission attributable to the respondent which otherwise
do not amount to deficiency in service. In case of bonafide disputes no wilful fault,
imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance in
the service can be informed. If on facts it is found that the person or authority rendering
service had taken all precautions and considered all relevant facts and circumstances in the
course of the transaction and that their action or the final decision was in good faith, it cannot
be said that there had been any deficiency in service. If the action of the respondent is found
to be in good faith, there is no deficiency of service entitling the aggrieved person to claim
relief under the Act. The rendering of deficient service has to be considered and decided in
each case according to the facts of that case for which no hard and fast rule can be laid down.
Inefficiency, lack of due care, absence of bonafide, rashness, haste or omission and the like
may be the factors to ascertain the deficiency in rendering the service.6
In the instant case the respondent No. 1 cannot be held to be guilty of rendering inefficient
service because its staff at Amsterdam is proved to have acted fairly and in a bonafide
manner keeping in mind the security and safety of passengers and the aircraft. It is not denied
6
Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (2000) 1 SCC 66, para 6
that the staff had found that the appellant was having two confirmed tickets from Amsterdam
to New York - one in KLM Flight and the other in TWA flight and that his photograph on the
visa documents was a photocopy and not original which ordinarily was unusual. In view of
two bookings and the visa papers being doubtful, the staff of the respondent Airlines took
sometime to ascertain the truth and made all efforts to ensure that the complainant reached
New York on the same day. The bonafide action taken by the staff of the respondent Airlines
cannot be held to be a deficiency in service. Looking from another point, the complainant
was not justified in preferring any claim against the said Airlines because he, admittedly, had
booked his seat in the TWA flight from Amsterdam. It appears that the complainant never
intended to have any service of respondent No. 1 for his onward journey from Amsterdam to
New York. When no service was hired, there was no question of deficiency in it. So far as
TWA is concerned, no claim can be preferred against it as, admittedly, the complainant never
approached their counter for the purposes of rendering their service in his air passage from
Amsterdam to New York. It is true that respondent No. I KLM failed to cancel complainant's
ticket on their flight from Amsterdam to New York but that failure, in any way, did not affect
the onward journey of the complainant.7

The complainant applied for admission to correspondence course and paid a registration fee
of Rs. 30. The opposite party registered the application and admission intimation was issued
as per the records with a direction to remit a sum of Rs 420. The complainant obtained a
demand draft for Rs. 420 in favour of the opposite party as per the records and sent the same
by registered post. However, he did not hear further from the opposite party.
The initial default is that of the opposite party in not crediting the amount to the account of
the complainant while receiving the demand draft for Rs 420 resulting in the cancellation of
admission. There has therefore been gross deficiency of service, carelessness and negligence
on the part of the opposite party. The commission held the opposite party liable on the
grounds that, on account of deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the opposite
party, the complainant has been deprived of taking his B.Sc. degree in correspondence course
and he has therefore been put to much mental pain and agony and has also suffered prospects
in future.8

Impossibility
The National Commission has held that inability to render a service due to reasons beyond
the control of the party would not constitute a deficiency in service. Thus, section 56 of the
Contract Act which excuses performance because of a supervening impossibility or illegality
would be available as a defence.

Privity of Contract
Going through the definition of deficiency as given in section 2 (1) (g) in its decision in
Indian Oil Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council, Kerala9 the Supreme Court felt that

7
Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (2000) 1 SCC 66, para 7
8
Murugan v. The Director, Institute of Correspondence Education, University of Madras, Chepauk (1993) 1
CTJ 414
9
(1994) 1 SCC 397
any complaint about deficiency in services would require some privity of contract between
the person rendering the services and the consumer although the words used in the definition
are whether the services are performed "in pursuance of a contract or otherwise". The
complaint was by a consumer of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) cylinders and regulator who
happened to be a member-secretary of a voluntary consumer organization. The complaint was
about the failure of the distributor of the IOC to regularize the consumer and irregularity in
supplies. The District Forum as upheld by the State Commission and the National
Commission allowed relief. The Supreme Court reversed the matters. Mohan, J. accepted the
contentions of the oil corporation that their distributors are independent principal agencies
and not the working agents of the corporation and, therefore, the corporation is not liable for
their misdeeds and that the consumer in this case had brought not through regular channels
but through other methods. For these two reasons there was no privity of contract between the
corporation and the consumer. In reference to the contention that the consumer had been
receiving replacement cylinders from the dealer, the learned Judge noticed that the name of
the corporation's authorized dealer was "K Gas Agencies" and that the consumer had been
receiving his replacements from "K Gas Enterprises". The court was not provided with a
valid document such as receipt of subscription voucher issued by K Gas Agencies. Thus it
was an unauthorized connection and a violation of the control order by both parties. The
supplier's licence was temporarily suspended by the corporation as a mark of punishments for
unauthorized dealings and the consumer must suffer for his illegality without any relief. Thus
while the corporation was helpless against the excesses of its dealers, the consumer must
suffer silently where the connection is provided without a booking voucher and that too in a
false name.
It is necessary to attract consumer jurisdiction that the service in question has been carried
out either in the performance of a contract or a legal duty. Any additional service not required
by law or contract will not attract consumer relationship.10

IMPARTING EDUCATION FOR CONSIDERATION - AMBIT OF

SERVICE
The service of education, rendered by educational institutions like schools and colleges, is
one of the most valuable services in the human society. The student/candidate who attends
school and college hires the services of these institutions and appearing in examinations. A
candidate becomes a consumer of services of educational institutions at the time when the
fees is accepted. Hence, the imparting of education is covered under the definition of services
under section 2(1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act although education does not find
mention in express terms under section 2 (1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act. A school
was accordingly compelled to refund all charges like fee and annual charges except
admission fee when the parent got the admission of his child cancelled well before teaching
session and the seat was quickly filled by a new admission on similar charges. Retention of
admission money was sufficient to compensate the school for expenses incurred in the
admission. 'Services' means service of any description which is made available to potential

10
Chief General Manager, MTNL v. Suresh Bhargava (1995) 1 CPJ 61 NC
user.11 The legislature intends to bring within its ambit the services of any description when
rendered for consideration. If education is generically and pre-eminently a service, then it
would be more so within the expansive and large field of service spelt out in the definition of
service under the Act.12
Where a University delayed declaration of revaluation results so that the candidate had to
appear in the supplementary and ultimately he passed both, an award of compensation to the
candidate was held to be justified.13 Failure on the part of the college to send in time the
student's internal assessment which affected his career was considered to be serious
deficiency. The University was compelled to pay Rs.2 lakhs as compensation for loss of one
year.14A university taking 10 years' time in issuing the degree certificate of the complainant
was ordered to pay Rs.10,000 by way of compensation. A correspondence university failing
to send study material in time and consequently depriving the candidate of his opportunity
and causing him loss of one year, was held to be deficient in its services.15 A university which
issued an identical roll number to more than one examinee was held to be deficient in
services but no liability was imposed because the other candidate with the same roll no. did
not appear and the apprehension of the complainant-examinee that her marks might have
gone to the benefit of the other candidate was not borne out by the facts. Thus the complaint
was liable to be dismissed.16 The National Commission in its decision in Registrar,
Evaluation, University of Karnataka v. Poornima G. Bhandari17 laid down the following
principle as to examinations:
"We are clearly of the view that in carrying its functions of conducting examinations, valuing
answer papers and publishing results, the University was not performing any service for
consideration and a candidate cannot be regarded as a person who had hired or availed of the
services of the university for a consideration. The complainant was not, therefore, a consumer
entitled to seek any relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986."
Following this ruling the AP State Commission held that where the grievance related to the
conducting of an examination and publication of results, the matter would be squarely
covered by the decision of the National Commission and, therefore, the complainant was not
a consumer and not entitled to any relief under the Act.18

Element of 'Consumer' Essential

It is necessary that the complainant must fall under the definition of 'consumer' and there
should be allegations of deficiencies in 'service' as defined.
The claim of the claimant to the effect that he was assured that the classes would be held on
the ground floor and not on the first floor is a fact. However, the issue for consideration was,
in accordance with the complaint if the classes are not held on the ground floor and are held

11
Apeejay School v. M K Sanghal (1993) 2 CPR 62
12
Tilak Raj of Chandigarh v. Haryana School of Education Board (1992) I CPJ 76
13
Registrar, Bangalore University v. Parida Ansari (1993) 2 CPR 345 Kant.
14
Brinder Nath v. V.C.,University of Jammu (1995) 3 CPJ 464 J&K
15
Director, School of Correspondence Courses, AP v. V. Satyanarayana (1993) 2 CPR 362 AP
16
Manisha Samal v. Sambalpur University (1992) 1 CPR 215 NC
17
First Appeal No. 245/92 and followed in K. Ravi v. V.C., Mysore University (1994) 1 CPR 894 Kant.
18
Secretary, Board of Intermediate Education v. M. Suresh (1995) 2 CPJ 167 AP
at the first floor, whether such a student can be termed a consumer for the purpose of
invoking the jurisdiction of the consumer forum.
It was held that the consumer forum cannot be converted into a court of recovery of amount
simplicitor. If a student is not allowed to change the subject or is not prepared to attend the
classes at the first floor, the student was not a 'consumer' as defined and thus, the district
consumer forum cannot take cognizance of the case and the complaint ought to have been
dismissed for being without jurisdiction.19

Education As Service
The ratio of the decision of the National Commission in Board of Examinations, Madras v.
Mohideen Abdul Kader20 was that a person who appears at an examination is not in the
position of a person who has hired or availed of the services of the institution for a
consideration. The Supreme Court has not ruled that whenever education is imparted for
consideration there exists a quid pro quo. Explaining the meaning of the word "service" the
National Commission said:
"Section 2(1) (d) of the Act defines "consumer" as meaning any person who (i) buys any
goods for consideration etc.; and (ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which
has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of
deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who
hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly
promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with
the approval of the first mentioned person. Hiring any services for consideration is thus one
of the essential pre-conditions before a person can be considered to be a consumer within the
meaning of the Act. The word 'hire' means to acquire the temporary use of a thing or the
services of a person in exchange for payment, to engage the temporary use for a fixed sum, to
procure the use of services of, at a price, to grant temporary use of for compensation. This is
the ordinary, plain, grammatical meaning of the expression and has been so expressed by this
Commission in several cases. The Consumer must be one who has hired services for
consideration must be established. The definition of 'service' is contained in Section 2(1) (o)
of the Act."
The majority view of the National Commission was as follows:
"We must make it clear that in this case or in the earlier cases this Commission did not
consider the general question whether the imparting of education for consideration would
come or not within the ambit of the service under the Act. Whether a University or an
institution affiliated to it imparting education is within the arena of consumer jurisdiction is a
question which this Commission will consider and decide when it directly arises before it.
What this Commission has decided in earlier cases is that a University or the Board in
conducting public examination, evaluating answer papers, announcing the results thereof and
thereafter conducting re-checking of the marks of any candidate on the application made by
the concerned candidate is not performing any service for hire and there is no arrangement of
hiring of any service involved in such a situation as contemplated by section 2(1) (o) of the

19
Mahima Shiksha Samiti and Anrs. v. Distt. Consumer Forum and Ors. (2000) 1 CPR 357
20
(1997) 2 CPJ 49 NC
Act. A candidate who appears for the examination cannot be regarded as a person who had
hired or availed of the services of the University or Board for consideration."
Education does not find mention in express terms like other activities which have been
specifically enumerated, but being inclusive definition the net is very wide. But the Supreme
Court has not ruled that whenever Education is imparted for consideration there exists a quid
pro quo for the provision of education and monetary recompense, therefore, and included in
the definition of service.

SPECIFIC CASES

Flaws in Evaluation and delay in issuing the Mark Sheet21

Sushmita Moharana filed a complaint with the State Commission that the Board of Secondary
Education

REFERENCES
Books:
 Avtar Singh, "Law of Consumer Protection",4th Edition 2005, Eastern Book
Company
 V Balakrishna Eradi,"Consumer Protection Jurisprudence", Edition 2005, LexisNexis
 Rajyalakshmi Rao, "Consumer is King", Edition 2008, Universal Law Publishing Co.
Pvt. Ltd.
 Dr. R.K.Bangia, "Consumer Protection Laws and Procedure", 5th Edition 2004,
Allahabad Law Agency

Web sources:
 http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-09-06/india/28075823_1_board-
examination-consumer-protection-act-roll-number
 http://www.winentrance.com/news/consumer-seeking-admissions-educational-
institution.html
 http://prayatna.typepad.com/education/2003/11/is_a_education_.html
 http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Student-not-a-consumer-of-Education-
Board-1582.asp#.UEkkRbJlTCA
 http://barandbench.com/brief/3/281/supreme-court-on-the-jurisdiction-of-consumer-
forums-a-welcome-trend
 http://consumereducation.in/defectivegood.pdf

21
Board of Secondary Education v. Sasmita Moharana II (2007) CPJ 154 (NC)