Mr. Justice D.R. Vithal Rao, President— This appeal, by the opposite party, is directed against the order dated 20.10.1992, passed by the District Forum, Bangalore, in Complaint No. 2984/1992 granting compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant.

The facts, briefly stated, are as follows:

1. The complainant, the mother of IInd year B.Sc, student, Farhan Ansari, filed the complaint seeking the following reliefs:

"To order the University to declare her son's result before 28th or at the earliest. In doing so, son will be helping a mother who is going through frustration when she reads disappoint -ment on her son's face everyday."

2. The complainant averred that her son, Farhan Ansari, appeared for B.Sc, 2nd year examination in April, 1991 and his result of examination was declared as failed in Chemistry subject. The complainant applied for revaluation in respect of that paper and after revaluation, her son Farhan Ansari, was declared as passed in that paper. The results of revaluation were declared on 3.1.1992. In the meanwhile, the complainant's son took up the supplementary examination held in the month of October, 1991. Her son was also declared "passed" in the supplementary examination in Chemistry paper in the month of

January, 1992.

3. 3.The complainant, on the basis of these averments, sought reliefs as narrated above.

4. 4.The opposite party filed its objection. It would be better to refer the objection statement in full, filed by the opposite party:

"Parawise replies in respect of complaint No. BDF:COM:2984/91 made to the Bangalore District Forum, Bangalore:

Para-1 of the petition — The student had applied for revaluation in Chemistry paper of II B.Sc, Examination held in April 1991.

Paras - II & IV — His paper was revalued. The candidate has passed in Chemistry paper II in revaluation. The marks Card bearing SI. No. 13834 has already been sent to the College on 3.1.92."

5. 5.The District Forum, on consideration of the material so placed on record, held that the complainant established deficiency in service rendered by the opposite party and in that view awarded compensation to the complainant in a sum of Rs. 5,000/-.

6. 6.We have called for the records and received. We have also heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the complainant the mother of the student.

7. The learned Counsel for the opposite party relying on the decision in University of Ajmer v. Hanuman Dutt & Another, reported in Appeal No. 10/ 1990 decided on 23.3.1990 by the Rajasthan Commission, submitted that the services rendered by the University in imparting education cannot be classified as service within the meaning of the provisions of the Act.

8. We are not in agreement with the view taken by the Rajasthan Commission in the aforesaid case.

9. The Gujrath State Commission in Oza Nirav Kanubhai v. Centre Head, Appele Industries Ltd., and others, reported in Volume II (1992) CPJ 706; the Haryana State Commission in A. PJ. School v. K.L. Galhotra reported in Volume II (1992) CPJ 807, Haryana State Commission in Tilak Raj v. Haryana School Education Board, reported in Vol. I (1992) CPJ 76: Maharashtra State Commission in Abel Pacheco Gracior. v. Principal, Bharathi VidyaPeeth, reported in I (1992) CPJ 105 and this Commission in M. Sukesh v. Official-in-charge "Dak Adalat" reported in Volume II (1992) CPJ 933, have taken the view that student is a "consumer" and imparting of education for consideration is a "service" within the meaning of the Act. The University collects examinations fees from the students. This fee is towards conducting the examinations, valuation of the answer scripts and publishing the results and awarding the degree/diploma. These are, in our opinion, the services for which the University collects the examination fees. A student or his guardian is entitled to approach the Consumer Forums, if there is deficiency in rendering any of the above services.

10. So the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant has no subst