1. Heard Mr. Prashanto Sen, Senior Advocate, for the petitioner. 2. Above revision has been filed against the order of Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, dated 03.01.2023, passed in First Appeal No.698/2022 (arising from the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar, dated 05.07.2022 passed in CC/261/2009), whereby District Forum has allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner (opposite party) to release the result of the complainant with 15 days from the date of the order, failing which to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to the complainant for destroying his precious period and loosing opportunity to get admission in LA TROBE University of Melbourne. 3. The office has reported delay of 81 days in filing the revision. The petitioners have filed IA/8285/2023, for condoning the delay. Subject to objection of the respondent, delay in filing the revision is condoned and the revision was heard on admission. 4. The respondent filed CC/190/2022 for directing the petitioner to declare the result/TRF of the complainant as early as possible or in alternative refund the exam/test fee of Rs.14700/- and he may also be granted the compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for suffering from mental pain, agony harassment and inconvenience alongwith Rs.30000/- as litigation expenses. 5. The complainant stated that he hired services of the opposite party for consideration of IELTS Examination by paying an amount of Rs.14700/-. The opposite party conducted the exam at two centres and the complainant attended both exams. The opposite party did not declare the result of the complainant even after expiry of about four months although result of other candidates, who had given exam alongwith the complainant, was declared. The complainant sent various emails to the opposite party to declare his result but in vain. The complainant also received an offer from LA TROBE University, Melbourne and requested the opposite party to release his result but he was told that investigation is going on in the matter and the result would be declared only after investigation. Thereafter, the complainant received a message from the opposite party that his score was 7.0 in the TRF Test result held on 04.12.201. The complainant requested the opposite party to release the result, whereupon he was asked to provide his details in the prescribed form. The complainant provided the requisite details in the prescribed form, even then his result was not released by the opposite party. Then the complainant filed consumer complaint No.190/2022 with the District Commission. 6. The petitioner filed their written reply and contested the complaint. The petitioners stated that the complainant was not a Consumer as the educational matters did not fall under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite party, vide email dated 21.12.2021 informed the complainant that his test was under the scrutiny of IELTS Test Partners. Investigations of IELTS test results were beyond the control of the opposite party. There was no deficiency in service on their part. 7. The District Commission allowed the complaint, vide order dated 05.07.2022. The opposite party filed First Appeal No.698/2022 with the State Commission, which was dismissed, vide impugned order dated 03.01.2023. Hence, the opposite party has filed the present revision petition. 8. Alongwith the written statement filed with the District Commission, the opposite party also filed copy of the letter dated 31.05.2022 whereby they flatly refused to release the result of the complainant stating that in the investigation that the complainant’s result was not a reliable indicator of the his English language ability. The District Commission observed that the opposite party had not produced any evidence to show that the complainant’s result was not a reliable indicator of his English language ability. It was also observed that the opposite party had decided the result behind the wall. The District Commission held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The State Commission concurred with the finding of the District Commission and dismissed the appeal. Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 and Loudres Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel Vs. H & R Johson (India) Ltd. (2016) 8 SCC 286, held that National Commission has no jurisdiction to set aside concurrent findings of facts recorded by two foras below, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 9. The petitioner was providing its service for conducting examination for eligibility test of the candidates for their admission in the University. The petitioner charged examination fee. As such relation between the petitioner and the candidates of service provider and a consumer is established. So far as judgment in Manu Solanki & Ors. vs. Vinayaka Mission University CC/261/2012 and other connected matters (2020) 1 CPJ 2010 is concerned, this Commission held that the educational institutions established under a statute are not within the purview of Consumer Protection Act. The petitioner has failed to produce any evidence either before the Fora below or before this Commission that the petitioner was established under any statute or imparting education under the statute. Therefore, the consumer complaint is maintainable. O R D E R In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision petition has no merit and is dismissed. | 
