Respondent was duly served.  On 07.07.2011       respondent had put appearance in person and sought adjournment on the ground that his counsel Mr. Gagan Gupta was admitted in the hospital for throat problem.  The case was adjourned for today.  Neither the respondent nor his counsel is present.  Ordered to be proceeded ex parte.

          Respondent/complainant applied for 10+2 examination as a private candidate by filling up the requisite form which was received by the petitioner on 18.10.2005.  The role number was not issued because the requisite late fee had not been paid.  respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking a compensation of Rs.70,000/- for the loss of one precious year, Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and harassment and cost of Rs.5,000/-.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for loss of one precious year as well as for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.

          Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

          Counsel for the petitioner relying upon a judgment of Supreme Court in “Bihar School Examination Board vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, (2009) 8 SCC 483  contends that the petitioner board was not a service provider and the students who take examination is not a consumer and, therefore, the complaint filed by the respondent was not maintainable.

We find substance in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner.  Supreme Court of India in Bihar School Examination Board’s case (supra) after analyzing the entire case has held as under:

13.      The object of the Act is to cover in its net, services offered or rendered for a consideration. Any service rendered for a consideration is resumed to be a commercial activity in its broadest sense (including professional activity or quasi-commercial activity). But the Act does not intended to cover discharge of a statutory function of examining whether a candidate is fit to be declared as having successfully completed a course by passing the examination. The fact that in the course of conduct of the examination, or evaluation of answer-scripts, or furnishing of mark-sheets or certificates, there may be some negligence, omission or deficiency, does not convert the Board into a service-provider for a consideration, nor convert the examinee into a consumer who can make a complaint under the Act. We are clearly of the view that the 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.”

Since the view taken by the fora below runs contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court the same is set aside.  The revision petition is allowed.    Complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.