E.J. Bellie, President

1. The complainant Parijatham applied to the third opposite party, the Director of Government Examinations for permission to write the Government Examination for Physics & Biology of Higher Secondary Examination to be held in the year April, 1994. The complainant applied as a private candidate in order to improve her marks obtained in the earlier examination held in March, 1993 with an intention to get a medical seat of employment in Central Government Civil Services. The third opposite party permitted the complainant to write such examination in the Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Chengalpatta on 21.3.94 and 23.3.94. The third opposite party issued a Hall Ticket bearing No. 937950. The 1st opposite party was deputed as the Departmental Officer of the Centre for the examination and the 2nd opposite party is the Head Master of the said school. According to the complainant she was not permitted by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to write the Physics examination on 21.3.94 stating that they had received a letter dated 17.3.94 not to permit the complainant to write the said examination. When the matter was reported to the third opposite party, he denied having sent any such letter. On account of the attitude of the opposite parties the complainant was not able to write the examination and this has caused her irreparable harm since she lost the opportunity of getting admission to Medical College. On the allegation that the opposite parties are guilty of deficiency in service the complaint has been filed claiming damages on three grounds aggregating to Rs. 12,00,000/-.

2. The opposite parties filed a reply version contesting the complaint. It is mainly contended that the complainant is not a consumer within the definition of the Consumer Protection Act. It is further contended that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged.

3. The points for decision are :

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer within the definition of the Consumer Protection Act,

2. To what relief if any the complainant is entitled to.

4.Point No. 1 : When perusing the facts alleged in the complaint and written version, we are clearly of the view that the complainant is not a consumer as contended in the version. It is not in dispute that the examination was held by the third opposite party for a number of candidates and the complainant is one of them. On her application she has been permitted to write the examination. There is no question of hiring or availing of any service of the opposite parties for consideration. It is argued that the examination fee is paid. But that cannot be taken as consideration for the service rendered by the opposite parties. In this context we referred to an order of the National Commission in R.P. No. 372/92 (The Director of Technical Education, Madras & Anr. v.A. Siraj Basha) wherein it has been stated as follows :

'We are of opinion that this revision petition has to succeed on the short ground that there was no arrangement of hiring of service for consideration as between the complainant who was a candidate for an examination and the Director of Technical Education whose department conducted the examination. The complainant cannot be, therefore, regarded as a consumer. This aspect of the case has not been properly appreciated by the District Forum and the State Commission granting the relief of compensation to the complainant are hereby set aside and the complaint petition is dismissed as not maintainable under the Act.'

The said order of the National Commission

squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, there is no gain saying that the complainant is not a consumer. 5. Point No. 2 :In view of our finding on Point No. 1, no question of consideration of this point arise. 6. In the result, therefore, the complaint is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.