Challenge in these proceedings purportedly u/s 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is to the order dated 27.10.09 passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 222/08. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the present petitioner against the order dated 24.06.08 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla in complaint No. 131/03 by which order the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint holding the petitioner University guilty of deficiency in service/adopting unfair trade practice and directed them to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh as compensation to the complainant for the loss and injury and mental harassment caused to him on account of said deficiency in service with the stipulation that the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a and the complainant shall also be entitled to pay a costs of Rs.2,000/- . In appeal, the State Commission has upheld the finding of the District Forum as also the order passed by it. Hence, this petition by the petitioner. 2. We have heard Mr. Umang Shankar, learned counsel for the …3… petitioner University but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the respondents as they remained unrepresented on record despite due service of notice for the date of hearing. Counsel for the petitioner University would assail the impugned order simply on the ground that though the complainant was enrolled for imparting Distance Learning Education for Master of Computer Science (MCS) course for which the petitioner University was not recognized but subsequently the petitioner University was recognized for M. Sc. Computer Science course which is equivalent or more beneficial to the candidates who got enrolled themselves for MSC course and were in fact awarded degrees of M Sc. Computer Science on successful completion. It is also submitted that except the respondent/complainant, no other candidate made any grievance on that account and, therefore, the complainant can not be said to have suffered any loss or injury entitling him to any damages much less the compensation awarded by the fora below. It is also stated that the loss, if any, suffered by the complainant was on account of his own conduct in not pursuing the course for its entire duration and having withdrawn during the duration of the course. We have considered these submissions but do not find any merit in the same ..4.. because what is important is what the petitioner held out to the respondent/complainant and the public at large and what really they possessed at the relevant time. It is admitted position that the petitioner University was not recognized to impart education in MSC course at the relevant time but in spite of that they enrolled the candidates for such a course. The complainant has been misled when he took admission and that must be the reason why he chose not to pursue the course further. We, therefore, maintain the finding of deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice recorded by the fora below. However, in regard to the compensation, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice that pursuant to the directions of the District Forum which were affirmed by the State Commission, the petitioner University has already paid half of the awarded amount, i.e, Rs.50,000/- plus about Rs.22,000/- as interest and costs to the complainant. In our view, this payment to the respondent would be considered sufficient compensation for the redressal of his grievance. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. No further amount shall be payable by the petitioner to the respondent.