Person who filed copy application by paying requisite fee is a Consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Shri Prabhakar Vyankoba Aadone vs Superintendent, Civil Court on 8 July, 2002
Equivalent citations: I (2008) CPJ 427 NC
Bench: D W Member, R Rao, B Taimni

1. This Revision Petition is filed against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, rejecting the appeal of the Petitioner in his absence. The Respondent is a Superintendent of Civil Court, Senior Division, Solapur against whom a complaint was filed alleging delay in issuance of certificate copy of the judgment by the office of the Respondent. The District Forum awarded compensation of Rs. 250/- and costs of Rs. 250/- holding that there is deficiency in service by the Appellant and further holding that the Complainant was consumer qua the Appellant. The State Commission upset the finding on the basis that the Appellant being a government agency was exercising sovereign function and any deficiency in service arising would not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the consumer fora functioning under the Consumer Protection Act. The order of the District Forum was set aside and the complaint was dismissed. The Complainant has filed this revision feeling aggrieved by the said order of the State Commission......................................................

13. It may be noted that the concept of sovereign function has undergone changes and in a welfare state, where the activities of the government extend to several spheres, the distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign for the purpose of immunity has largely disappeared. (N. Nagendra Rao v. State of A.P. (1194) 6 SCC 205 @ 235, pr. 25; Common Cause v. Union of India (1999) 6 SCC 667 @ 716; Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das (2000) 2 SCC 465 @ 485, pr. 41, and State of A.P. v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy (2000) 5 SCC 712 @ 726-727.

14. While judicial officers may be protected from being arrayed in legal proceedings for their judicial function, (eg. See Section 28 of the Act) they do not enjoy such immunity for the administrative functions performed by them or by their staff. For instance, the functions performed by High Court in its administrative side are amenable to judicial review in its judicial side. See R.C. Sood v. High Court of Rajasthan (1994) supp. 3 SCC 711; High Court of Judicature, Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chandra Paliwal(1998) 3 SCC 72 @ 85, para 30.

15. The grant of certified copies of orders of courts is not a sovereign function but is an administrative function. Since this is not a judicial function, it does not partake the character of a 'sovereign function'.

16. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that an applicant for certified copy of a judicial order, who deposits a fee for obtaining such copy is a "Consumer" within the meaning of the act and the proceeding of such application and the preparation and delivery of the copy in consideration of the copying charges/fee by the concerned staff attached to the court would be a service within the meaning of the Act.

17. In the light of the above discussion, we cannot sustain the impugned order which is hereby set aside. The order of the District Forum is upheld. In the peculiar facts of this case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Before parting with we place on record our appreciation of the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Murlidharan, the amicus curiae appointed in this case.