BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION M.P. vs XEROX MODICOP LIMITED

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 28.7.2003 passed in Case No. 522/2003 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal (for short the "District Forum") whereby the complaint for deficiency in service in supply of defective Modi Xerox Colour Printer was dismissed at the admission stage holding that the complainant is a commercial organization which purchased printer for installation in their office, hence, the complainant is not a consumer within the ambit of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.

COMPLAINT has been defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act which reads thus : "2(1)(b) "complainant" means- (i) a consumer; or (ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or under any other law for the time being in force; or (iii) the Central Government or any State Government; (iv) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest;"

From a bare look to Clause (iii) of Section 2(1)(b) it is evident that Central Government or any State Government can be a Consumer. The Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh has been incorporated and established by the State Government under Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1965 (for short ''MPSA 1965'') which is constituted under Section 4 of the MPSA, 1965. The Board holds various examinations as enumerated in Section 106 of the MPSA 1965 at various centres on such dates and times as the examination committee, may from time to time, appoint. A bare look to the various provisions of the MPSA, 1965 it would be evident that the Board discharges its functions and duties as statutory body under the MPSA, 1965, thus, in an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India falling within the ambit of State.

It is well settled that the Board while conducting examinations, evaluating papers and publishing results thereof does not render any service for consideration. See, the decisions of National Commission in Controller of Exam, Himachal Pradesh University & Anr. v. Sanjay Kumar, I (2003) CPJ 273 (NC)=2003 NCJ 337 (NC); Alex. J. Rebello v. Vice Chancellor, Bangalore University & Ors., II (2003) CPJ 7 (NC); Ex. Sub. Sachidanand Sharma v. Chairman, CBSE, I (2003) CPJ 251 (NC).

THE District Forum dismissed the complaint at the admission stage without affording an opportunity to the appellant to place the material on record that it is not a commercial establishment but is a statutory body established under Section 3 of the MPSA, 1965. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in remitting the case to the District Forum for deciding the complaint after notice to the opposite parties on all legal and factual pleas which may arise in the case without being influenced by the order passed by this Commission in appeal.

APPELLANT to appear before the District Forum on 2 of which no notice shall be issued to the appellant. On that date, the District Forum shall heard the appellant on question of admission of complaint. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set-aside and the case is remitted to the District Forum for deciding the complaint afresh in the manner indicated hereinabove. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties and a copy be sent to the District Forum along with the record of the case. Appeal allowed.