A consumer commission in Mumbai has dismissed a complaint filed by a law student against a court registrar over delays in obtaining certified copies of court proceedings. The South Mumbai panel of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled that seeking such copies is a statutory right and does not constitute hiring a service, thus the complainant does not qualify as a 'consumer'.
The Law Student's Grievance
The case involved a 27-year-old law student who had approached the commission with a complaint against the registrar of the city civil and sessions court in Mumbai. The student stated that he had applied for certified copies of proceedings related to a civil suit in 2018. He had deposited the necessary fee stamp and an initial payment at that time.
The student needed these documents for use in a separate legal case. Despite repeated follow-ups, he claimed he did not receive the copies. Seeking redress, he asked for a refund of the amount he paid, reimbursement for his travel expenses to the court, and compensation for the mental agony caused by the delay.
The Commission's Rationale for Dismissal
In its order issued earlier this month, the commission rejected the complaint based on a key legal principle. It referenced consistent rulings by the Honourable Supreme Court of India. The panel stated that individuals dealing with statutory or sovereign bodies in the discharge of their sovereign functions do not meet the definition of a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act.
"Applying the above principles, a litigant seeking certified copies is merely availing a statutory right. There is no hiring of service. Thus, the complainant does not fall within the definition of 'consumer'," the commission concluded. This meant the consumer forum did not have the jurisdiction to entertain his grievance.
The Court Registrar's Defense
In its response to the complaint, the registrar's office provided a detailed account of the process. It explained that since the copies were sought by a third party, the request required judicial consideration. The procedure involved placing the application before a judge, obtaining necessary orders, and then preparing the copies, which took several days. The office claimed the complainant was duly intimated afterwards.
The registrar also pointed out a financial discrepancy. It was submitted that the student had paid only Rs 200, leaving a deficit of Rs 474 that he was required to pay, and this was an issue on his part. Furthermore, the office maintained that the complaint was not maintainable as providing certified copies is not a commercial service offered by the court.
The dismissal of this complaint underscores the legal distinction between availing a citizen's statutory right from a government body and purchasing a service from a commercial entity. For grievances related to court administrative processes, litigants must seek remedy through other legal channels, not the consumer protection framework.
