The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ruled that courts do not qualify as commercial service providers, dismissing a law graduate’s complaint against the Bombay Court Registrar over delayed certified copies of proceedings.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (South Mumbai) has dismissed a complaint filed by a law graduate against the Registrar of the Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court, holding that judicial and administrative functions of courts do not fall within the scope of “commercial services” under the Consumer Protection Act.
The ruling clarifies that courts do not operate as commercial enterprises, even when they charge statutory fees for certified copies of court records.
The complaint was filed in 2018 by a 27-year-old law graduate, who alleged a deficiency in service after the court registry failed to provide certified copies of proceedings in a 2002 civil suit within a reasonable time. The complainant had deposited ₹200 while applying for the documents.
However, the Registrar argued that:
- The complainant was not a party to the original suit
- A judicial order was required before copies could be issued
- The documents were withheld because the complainant failed to pay the deficit charges of ₹274
In its order delivered on December 11, the commission ruled that the relationship between a litigant (or applicant) and a court registry is neither contractual nor commercial.
“The relationship is statutory, governed by procedural rules and the civil manual,”
the commission observed.
It further noted that consumer forums are not meant to oversee judicial administration or internal court functioning.
The commission emphasised that fees charged for certified copies are statutory in nature, not commercial consideration.
“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 order stated.
The commission acknowledged that the court registry:
- Processed the application after obtaining the necessary judicial order
- Prepared the copies promptly
- Withheld delivery only due to non-payment of deficit charges
As a result, the complaint failed both on the facts and on the law.
The commission highlighted that acts of court administration are outside the jurisdiction of consumer forums and allowing such complaints would undermine judicial independence.
“Consumer fora is not designed to supervise judicial administration. The complaint attempts to transpose an administrative-judicial grievance into a consumer dispute, which the law does not permit,”
the commission said.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Examines Uniform Pay for Consumer Commission Members Across States
The commission clarified that grievances against court registries should be addressed through:
- Applications to the concerned judge
- Complaints to senior registry officials
- Writ petitions before the High Court
Calling the complaint “wholly misconceived and not maintainable,” the commission concluded that the complainant failed to establish the essential ingredients of a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act.