Nand Kumar Kulhadi, respondent no.1/complainant took admission in three year LL.B. course in session 1995-1997 and                   was declared ‘Fail’ in the first year examination of the said course in the year 1995.  He applied for revaluation by depositing the                requisite fees.  Result of reevaluation was declared after a considerable time, on 28.5.1996, as a result of which he could not

-2-

appear in the second year examination and his one year was wasted.  Being aggrieved, complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum for grant of compensation.

          District Forum relying upon the order of this Commission in 1994 (1) CPJ 197 held that the respondent was not a ‘Consumer’ and, therefore, the complaint filed by him was not maintainable.

          Not satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, complainant/respondent no.1 filed the appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- within three months from the date of passing of the order, failing which the amount was to carry interest @ 9% from the date of the judgment till realization.

          Aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the University of Rajasthan, opposite party before the District Forum, has filed the present revision petition.

          Respondent no.1 is not present despite service.  Ordered to be proceeded ex-parte.

-3-

Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the recent judgment of Supreme Court in “Bihar School Examination Board vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, (2009) 8 SCC 483 to contend that the process of holding examinations, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates is a statutory function and the Board does not offer its services to any candidate; that the respondent would not fall within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant would not be maintainable.

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

11.     The Board is a statutory authority established under the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952. The function of the Board is to conduct school examinations. This statutory function involves holding periodical examinations, evaluating the answer scripts, declaring the results and issuing certificates. The process of holding examinations, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates are different stages of a single statutory non-commercial function. It is not possible to divide this function as partly statutory and partly administrative.

12.     When the Examination Board conducts an examination in discharge of its statutory function, it does not offer its "services" to any candidate. Nor does a student who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, hires or avails of any service from the Board for a consideration. On the other hand, a candidate who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, is a person who has undergone a course of study and who requests the Board to test him as to whether he has imbibed sufficient knowledge to be fit to be declared as having successfully completed the said course of education; and if so, determine his position or rank or competence vis-`-vis other examinees. The process is not therefore availment of a service by a student, but participation in a general examination conducted by the Board to ascertain whether he is eligible and fit to be considered as having successfully completed the secondary education course. 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.

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.”

-6-

          Respectfully following the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court of India, we allow this revision petition, set aside the order passed by the State Commission and restore that of the District Forum.  The complaint is ordered to be dismissed.