Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana and Anr. Vs. Shakti Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Decided by SC on: 13.04.2009

"unfair trade practice" are: (i) it must be a trade practice; (ii) the trade practice must be employed for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service; and (iii) the trade practice adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the practices enumerated in clauses (1) to (6) of Section 2(r) of the Act.
It is true that the Consumer Protection Act being a benevolent piece of legislation intended to protect the consumers from exploitation, the provisions thereof should receive a liberal construction; technicalities should be eschewed and grievances of the consumers deserve to be redressed expeditiously.
The averments in the complaint by the consumer cannot be taken as a Gospel truth. To support a finding of "unfair trade practice", there has to be some cogent material before the Commission and any inferential finding is not sufficient to attract Section 2(r) of the Act.

Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha Decided On by supreme court of india 04.09.2009

The examination fee paid by the student is not the consideration for availment of any service, but the charge paid for the privilege of participation in the examination.
Board is not a `service provider' and a student who takes an examination is not a `consumer' and consequently, complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the Board.
The Board is not carrying on any commercial, professional or service-oriented activity. No `benefit' is conferred nor any `facility' provided by the Board for any consideration. Therefore, the said decision is inapplicable.
Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus: Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases. One should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another.
Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it.

Lucknow Development Authority v. M. K. Gupta 1994 (1) SCC 243

In absence of any indication, expressed or implied there is no reason to hold that authorities created by the Statute are beyond purview of the Act.... 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".