ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 16.07.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 120 of 2012, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellants – opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to declare the correct result of respondent No. 1 – complainant within a period of one month from the date of the order and also to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to respondent No. 1 – complainant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant – Km. Eshita Sharma took admission in Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) course in K.L.D.A.V. (P.G.) College, Roorkee – opposite party No. 3. In the first and second year of the said course, she secured 74.1% and 73.5% marks respectively and stood at 2nd position in the College. It is alleged that she had done well in the 3rd year examination of the course, but she was allotted 65.6% marks, which disappointed her. The complainant sought certain information under the provisions of The Right of Information Act, 2005, but the correct information was not supplied to her. It is alleged that there has been negligence in evaluation of the answer sheets of the complainant and alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar. 3. The appellants filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that correct information was supplied to the complainant; that no extra answer sheets of the complainant were received by the University and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 16.07.2013 against the appellants in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed this appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent No. 1 – complainant as well as the representative of respondent No. 2 – College and have also perused the record. 6. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant had taken four “B” answer sheets in the 1st Paper of Chemistry of B.Sc. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent No. 1 – complainant as well as the representative of respondent No. 2 – College and have also perused the record. 6. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant had taken four “B” answer sheets in the 1st Paper of Chemistry of B.Sc. – III year, which fact is evident from Paper No. 17, the statement showing the number of answer sheets used in the examination and also from para 7 of the written statement filed by the appellants, wherein they have stated that the complainant had filed evidence to show that she had taken four “B” answer sheets during her examination, but there is no mention of “B” answer sheets on the main page of “A” answer sheet and that as per the record of the College, the complainant had taken “B” answer sheets, but the same were not sent to the University along with “A” answer sheet of the complainant. When the entire answer sheets of the complainant were not sent by the College to the University for evaluation, the University can not be said to be at fault in not evaluating the entire answer sheets of the complainant and in giving less marks to the complainant. 7. The complainant was given 19 marks in 1st Paper of Chemistry of B.Sc. – III year and on the matter being brought to the notice of the University and after investigation of the matter, the University had constituted a Committee, which had given the report dated 16.09.2013 and on the basis of the report, since the “B” answer sheets of the complainant were not available for evaluation and hence the Committee had recommended for giving the marks to the complainant on average basis and that the complainant be given 28 marks out of 50 and accordingly, the amended Statement of Marks was issued by the University to the complainant, wherein her marks in 1st Paper of Chemistry of B.Sc. – III year were shown as “28” in place of her earlier “19” marks, which is evident from Paper No. 36, the amended Statement of Marks of the complainant. 8. – III year were shown as “28” in place of her earlier “19” marks, which is evident from Paper No. 36, the amended Statement of Marks of the complainant. 8. Thus, in the present case, there appears to be no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and the District Forum was not justified in holding the appellants negligent and passing the award against the appellants. This apart, learned counsel for the appellants pressed into service decision dated 19.09.2012 of this Commission rendered in First Appeal No. 451 of 2010; Principal, D.A.V. (P.G.) College and another Vs. Sh. Madan Mohan Bahuguna, wherein it was held that the consumer complaint was not maintainable against the University. While coming to the said conclusion, this Commission has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur; 2010 AIR (SCW) 6001 = III (2010) CPJ 19 (SC) and in para 13 whereof, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “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 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 ‘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.” 9. In view of the above law pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it has to be held that the consumer complaint was not maintainable against the University and the District Forum was not justified in not taking into consideration the said fact and passing the award against the University. 10. In view of the above law pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it has to be held that the consumer complaint was not maintainable against the University and the District Forum was not justified in not taking into consideration the said fact and passing the award against the University. 10. However, as is stated above, there has been clear-cut negligence and deficiency in service in the present matter on the part of respondent No. 2 – College and the complainant inspite of having taken four “B” answer sheets during her examination, the same were not sent by the College to the University for evaluation, which led in the complainant securing less marks than her expectation and caused her disappointment. It is true that the complainant has been issued amended Statement of Marks, but the marks have been allotted to the complainant on average basis and not as per her performance and that too, has been issued after the complainant has brought her grievance before the Consumer Forum. The representative of respondent No. 2 – College, who appeared before us, has stated that the College has sent all the four “B” answer sheets of the complainant to the University for evaluation, but no such plea was taken by the College by filing the written statement before the District Forum or by adducing any evidence in support of their above version. Thus, there has been negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the College and hence the College is liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony suffered by her. The District Forum has awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant, which in our view, is on the higher side and need to be reduced to Rs. 25,000/- and the respondent No. 2 – College is to be held liable to pay the said amount to the complainant and the appellants are to be absolved from any liability. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 16.07.2013 passed by the District Forum is modified and the appellants are absolved from the liability to pay any amount to respondent No. 1 – complainant, rather the respondent No. 2 – Principal, K.L.D.A.V. (P.G.) College, Roorkee is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to respondent No. 1 – complainant. No order as to costs.