In a significant ruling that delineates the limits of consumer law, the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed a complaint filed against the Registrar of the Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court. The commission firmly stated that individuals seeking certified copies of court documents are not 'consumers' under the Consumer Protection Act, and the court registry's functioning does not amount to a 'commercial service'.
Core of the Dispute: A Law Graduate's Complaint
The case originated from a complaint by Mitesh Varshney, a law graduate. In September 2018, Varshney applied for certified copies of a suit from 2002, stating he needed them urgently for a separate matter concerning illegal construction. Despite paying an initial deposit and making repeated follow-ups, he alleged inordinate delay in receiving the copies. This delay, he claimed, caused him significant mental and physical stress, leading him to seek compensation along with reimbursement for legal and travel expenses from the consumer forum.
The Court Registry's Defense and Commission's Analysis
The Registrar of the City Civil Court presented a detailed timeline, explaining the procedure under the Civil Manual. Since Varshney was a third party to the original suit, his application required a judicial order. Records showed permission was granted by a judge in October 2018, and the copies were prepared soon after. However, the application remained 'under objection' because Varshney failed to pay a deficit copying charge of Rs 274.
The consumer commission meticulously examined the nature of the relationship between a litigant and the court. It held that this relationship is statutory and not contractual. 'The court does not run a commercial enterprise to supply copies for profit; it administers justice and maintains court records,' the commission observed. It emphasized that the fees paid for court documents are statutory levies under rules, not a commercial 'consideration' for profit.
Broader Implications: Sovereign Functions Beyond Consumer Law
The ruling carries substantial weight for judicial administration. The commission cited Supreme Court precedents to reiterate that sovereign and judicial functions fall outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Allowing consumer forums to supervise court staff or question procedural timelines would, in its view, undermine the established judicial hierarchy.
'Consumer fora are not designed to supervise judicial administration or the internal working of courts,' the commission stated. It clarified that grievances against a court registry should be pursued through internal administrative channels or the High Court, not a consumer commission. The commission ultimately dismissed Varshney's complaint for want of jurisdiction, concluding he failed to establish a 'consumer-service provider' relationship. It noted that seeking certified copies is availing a statutory right, not 'hiring a service'.
The commission made it clear that its dismissal was on jurisdictional grounds and expressed no opinion on any other legal remedies Varshney might pursue within the proper judicial framework.
