Educational Institutions Are Not Covered Under Consumer Protection Act, Bihar State Commission Dismisses Appeal Against Bihar School Examination Board

Brief Facts:

The Complainant's son was admitted as a regular student in the science faculty at VM Inter College, Gopalganj for the 2016-2018 session. The examinations for this session were conducted from January 11, 2018, to February 14, 2018, by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna (“Board”). The son was issued an admit card and appeared for both the written and practical examinations. During the examinations, he signed the attendance sheet and was present for the practical examinations in physics, chemistry, and biology. However, when the results were published by the Board, he was marked absent for the biology practical examination and was subsequently declared failed.

The Complainant and his son visited the school's and the board's office and requested verification of his attendance from the attendance sheet, but no action was taken. The headmaster also wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Board, stating that the Complainant's son was present for the biology practical examination. Despite this, the Board took no steps to address the issue. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gopalganj, Bihar (“District Commission”).

In response, the Board contended that the Complainant was neither a consumer nor the Board was providing any service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Commission dismissed the complaint. Dissatisfied by the decision, the Complainant filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (“State Commission”).

Observations of the Commission:

The State Commission held that the issue in the complaint was based on a settled position. In the case of Bihar School Examination Board vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha [2009 (8) SCC 483], it was held that the examination board did not render any service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Further, in the case of Monu Solanki vs. Vinayaka Mission University, it was held that institutions rendering education were not covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986.

Given these precedents, the State Commission held that the appeal was devoid of any merit and dismissed it at the admission stage itself.

Case Title: Biresh Manjhi vs The Headmaster-cum-Centre Superintendent and Others

Case No.: Appeal No. 325 of 2023

Advocate for the Appellant: Mr Shiv Sagar Sharma

Advocate for the Respondents: None

Date of Order: 15.07.2024