Heard. 2. Petitioner/ complainant had filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (for short, he District Forum against the respondent/ opposite party alleging deficiency on their part on the ground that though he had passed the MA degree course in the year 1990 but Respondent University had not furnished the regular degree certificate in spite of best efforts made by him. Further, petitioner had sought compensation of Rs.20 lakh as well as Rs.5,000/- as damages. Consumer complaint was contested by the respondents. 3. The District Forum vide its order dated 13.11.2007, dismissed the complaint of the petitioner. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, (for short, he State Commission, which dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. 5. However, State Commission in the impugned order observed, f the complainant files an application for supply of regular degree certificate in respect of the course he has passed, the University is directed to issue the regular degree certificate within two months from the date of application filed by the complainant for degree certificate 6. Dissatisfied with the order of the State Commission, petitioner has filed the present revision petition. 7. It has been contended by the petitioner who has argued the matter in person that though he had received the degree certificate on 28.05.2013 but still he is entitled for compensation of Rs.20 lakh and Rs.5,000/- as cost. 8. Thus, admittedly the petitioner has received the degree certificate during the pendency of the present petitioner. 9. Honle Supreme Court in Bihar School Examination Board vs Suresh Prasad Singh (2009) 8 SCC 483 considered the question as to whether a candidate can file a complaint before the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act (for short, he Act raising any grievance regarding his examinations conducted by the Bihar School Examinations Board constituted under the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952 and answered it in negative observing as under: he object of the Act is to cover in its net, services offered or rendered for a consideration. Any service rendered for a consideration is presumed to be a commercial activity in its broadest sense (including professional activity or quasi-commercial activity). But the Act does not intend 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 ervice providerand a student who takes an examination is not a onsumerand consequently, complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the Board 10. Following the above dictum of Law laid down by Honle Supreme Court in Bihar School Examination Board (Supra) we hold that the consumer complaint filed by the petitioner before the District Forum is not maintainable since the petitioner is not a consumer. In view of this, revision petition stands dismissed, with no order as to cost.