Educational Deficiencies Can't Be Addressed By Consumer Commissions, Shimla District Commission Dismisses Complaint Against CBSE And St. Edward's School

Brief Facts:

Shri Anil Thakur (“Complainant”) contended that the actions of St. Edward's School led to the loss of a valuable academic year for his ward, Master Panav Thakur and that the Regional Officer's (CBSE) issuance of the Grade Sheet cum Certificate of Performance, before the Science exam, amounted to cheating. The Complainant stated that despite repeated reminders, the school assured a separate date for the Science exam, causing confusion and later informing about the Science exam on 26.08.2017. The Complainant asserted negligence and careless attitude on the school's part, leading to the ward's disqualification for higher classes and subsequent shifting to another school. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against the school and CBSE. The Complainant argued that these actions by the school and CBSE constitute a deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

In response, the school disputed the complaint, claiming that the ward failed in Mathematics and Science, and despite compassionate considerations, the student was placed ineligible for the Improvement of Performance (EIOP) category. It asserted that the circular from the Central Board of School Education (CBSE) clearly outlined the process for EIOP candidates, and the Complainant was aware of it. The school insisted that communication through SMS and notice board clarified the dates for revision and exams. It contended that the entire case was based on an SMS that did not mention Science and the school took compassionate measures, holding the exams on 15th July 2017.

On the other hand, CBSE denied any deficiency in service, stating that after receiving the legal notice, it promptly directed the school to provide a detailed explanation. It emphasized that the schools were instructed to conduct the summative exam, including preparing the question paper and mark sheet, and argued that the responsibility lies with the school.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission held that it is crucial to determine whether the Complainant qualified as a consumer and if the Commission holds jurisdiction to address the concerns raised. The District Commission held that education is not considered a commodity, and educational institutions providing services cannot be classified as service providers. It underscored that a student, in the context of education, cannot be deemed a consumer, and, therefore, consumer courts lack jurisdiction over matters related to educational deficiencies. It noted the fact that students undergoing examinations conducted by the Board are not availing services for consideration, emphasizing that education is not a service subject to consumer protection laws.

Consequently, the District Commission held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against the educational institution.

Case Title: Anil Thakur vs The Principal St. Edward's School and Anr.

Case Number: 310/2018

Click Here to Read/Download Order