JUDGMENT By the Court.—Sri Rohit Pandey has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner, which is taken on record. 2. List has been revised. Sri Rohit Pandey learned counsel appears for the petitioner. No one appears for the respondents. 3. The petitioner, Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur through its Registrar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’) has filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 78 of 2008 (Manisha Pandey v. Principal Mahavidyalaya, Lakhimpur Khiri and another) filed before the Consumer Forum. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 appeared as a regular candidate in the B.A. III year final examination in the year 2006 in the Mahavidyalaya, Lakhimpur Khiri which is affiliated to the University bearing Roll No. 645147. The result was declared in which she was declared successful. In the complaint she has disclosed that her marks were available on the net which shows that she has secured 472 marks out of 900 marks. It is stated that as per procedure the marks-sheet is sent to the residence of the candidates but in the case of respondent No. 1 even after several months of declaration of the result the marks-sheet was not sent to the residence of the respondent No. 1. It is stated that respondent No. 1 went to the office of the Mahavidyalaya to enquire about the matter and she was informed that her marks-sheet had not been received from the University and as soon as it would be received the same would be delivered to her. Thereafter when the respondent No. 1 could not get her marks-sheet, she made several visits personally in the office of the Mahavidyalaya but to no avail. 5. The submission is that on account of non availability of the marks-sheet the respondent No. 1 had suffered as she could not pursue her further studies, therefore she filed the aforementioned complaint case before the Consumer Forum seeking Rs. 60,000/- towards future loss, Rs. 2,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs. 5,000/- towards legal expenses total of which comes to Rs. 87,000/-. 6. 60,000/- towards future loss, Rs. 2,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs. 5,000/- towards legal expenses total of which comes to Rs. 87,000/-. 6. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-University with the plea that the respondent No. 1 had appeared as a regular candidate in B.A. III year examinations and though there was delay in providing her the copy of the marks-sheet, proceedings before the Consumer Forum are not maintainable as the respondent No. 1 is a student and is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is stated that there is no description of purchase of goods by the respondent No. 1 from the petitioner-University nor she hires or avails of any services, paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised. It is also stated that the University does not provide any service within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act, and therefore, the complaint case was not maintainable before the Consumer Form. Section 2(1)(d) of the Act defines the word ‘consumer’ which reads as under: “2(1)(d) (d) ?consumer? means any person who,? (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.” 7. Section 2(1)(o) defines the word ‘service’ which is extracted below: “2(l)(o) ?service? Section 2(1)(o) defines the word ‘service’ which is extracted below: “2(l)(o) ?service? means service of any description which is made available to potential [users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, [housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.” 8. Section 2(1)(c) defines the word ‘complaint’ which reads as under: “2(1)(c) ?complaint? means any allegation in writing made by a complainant that? (i) an unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice has been adopted by any trader or service provider; (ii) the goods bought by him or agreed to be bought by him suffer from one or more defects; (iii) the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him suffer from deficiency in any respect; (iv) a trader or the service provider, as the case may be, has charged for the goods or for the services mentioned in the complaint, a price in excess of the price? (a) fixed by or under any law for the time being in force; (b) displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods; (c) displayed on the price list exhibited by him by or under any law for the time being in force; (d) agreed between the parties; (v) goods which will be hazardous to life and safety when used are being offered for sale to the public,?” 9. A bare reading of the word ‘consumer’ signifies any person who buys any goods for consideration, which has been paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised or under any system of deferred payment etc. or one who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised etc. or one who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised etc. The word ‘service’ is defined to mean any description of service which is made available to potential users and includes, but is not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service. The word ‘complaint’ is defined to mean any allegation in writing made by a complainant that an unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice has been adopted by any trader or service provider or the goods bought by her or agreed to be bought by her suffer from one or more defects or services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by her suffer from deficiency in any respect or a trader or the service provider, as the case may be, has charged for the goods or for the services mentioned in the complaint, a price in excess of the price fixed or goods which will be hazardous to life and safety etc. 10. From a conjoint reading of the words ‘consumer’, ‘service’ and ‘complaint’ there is left no doubt that a student is not a ‘consumer’ of goods or ‘service’ as defined in the Act or in the definition of word ‘complaint’ in the said Act. 11. The Supreme Court in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, (2010) 11 SCC 159 , has held as under: “20. The third and the most important issue that deserves to be answered is the competence of the District Forum and the hierarchy of the Tribunals constituted under the Act 1986 to entertain such a complaint. In our opinion, this issue is no longer res integra and has been extensively discussed by a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, (2009) 8 SCC 483 , where it has been 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. 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-a-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 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. 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.” (Emphasis added) 21. The respondent abused the privilege of appearing in the B.Ed. examination though she was not entitled to avail of the benefit of notification dated 16.3.1998. 22. The National Commission appears to have been swayed by observations made in the Bangalore Water Supply case (supra). The respondent as a student is neither a consumer nor is the appellant rendering any service. The claim of the respondent to award B.Ed. degree was almost in the nature of a relief praying for a direction to the appellant to act contrary to its own rules. The National Commission, in our opinion, with the utmost respect to the reasoning given therein did not take into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and thus, arrived at a wrong conclusion.” 12. A similar matter came up for consideration before another Division Bench of this Court in Writ C No. 61299 of 2009 (Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University Kanpur v. Vinay Singh Chauhan and another) decided on 20.11.2018 and held that the respondent, as a student, is neither ‘consumer’ nor University is rendering any service to its students, therefore, the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint. The judgment dated 20.11.2018 is a short one which is quoted in its entirety: “1. Heard Sri Sri Rohit Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner-University, Sri Sushant Mishra, learned counsel for respondent 1 and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash proceedings of Complaint Case No. 78 of 2009 (Vinay Singh Chauhan v. Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur and others) pending in the Court of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Farrukhabad (hereinafter referred to as “District Forum”). 3. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash proceedings of Complaint Case No. 78 of 2009 (Vinay Singh Chauhan v. Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur and others) pending in the Court of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Farrukhabad (hereinafter referred to as “District Forum”). 3. Respondent 1, Vinay Kumar Chauhan, being a student of petitioner-University, complained that due to non-declaration of result of B.A. IIIrd year back-paper examination of 2007, he suffered and thus claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and direction to issued mark-sheet, filed aforesaid complaint before District Forum. 4. Counsel for University submitted that respondent-1 in his capacity as ‘student’ did not satisfy definition of ‘consumer’ under Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1986”) and University is also not rendering any service to its students, hence, there could not be any complaint of deficiency in service and complaint before District Forum is wholly without jurisdiction and proceedings registered by District Forum are illegal. He submitted that similar issue has been decided in a number of cases by this Court, other Courts as well as Supreme Court. He placed reliance on Smt. Taneja and another v. Calcutta District Forum and others, AIR 1992 Calcutta 95; Bundelkhand University v. District Consumer Forum and others, 1998 (3) UPLBEC 1963 ; Civil Misc.Writ Petition No. 35317 of 1994 (The Registrar, Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi v. The District Consumer Redressal Forum, Jaunpur and others) decided on 6.1.2006; Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29610 of 2007 (Bundelkhand University Jhansi v. Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum) decided on 1.9.2008; and Supreme Court judgment in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, (2010) 11 SCC 159 . Supreme Court in Maharshi Dayanand University (supra) has held that respondent, as a student, is neither ‘consumer’ nor University is rendering any service to its students, therefore, Consumer Forum have no jurisdiction to entertain complaint. 5. Learned counsel for respondent 1, when confronted to aforesaid exposition of law, could not dispute application of the same to the issue raised in the present case and also could not place any otherwise authority to show that Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, in the present matter, has jurisdiction under provisions of Act, 1986. 6. Having gone through the aforesaid authorities, we find that issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by judgment rendered by Apex Court in Maharshi Dayanand University (supra). 6. Having gone through the aforesaid authorities, we find that issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by judgment rendered by Apex Court in Maharshi Dayanand University (supra). Hence, for the reasons stated therein, this writ petition is allowed and proceedings pending before District Forum being Complaint Case No. 78 of 2009 (Vinay Singh Chauhan v. Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur and others) are hereby quashed.” 13. For the reasons aforesaid, in our opinion the complaint made by the respondent No. 1- as a student against the University seeking damages or compensation for non receipt of his marks-sheet was not maintainable before the Consumer Forum under the Act. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The proceedings pending before the Consumer Forum, Kanpur Nagar being Complaint Case No. 78 of 2008 (Manisha Pandey v. Principal Mahavidyalaya, Lakhimpur Khiri and another) are therefore, quashed.