The South Mumbai Consumer Commission ruled that court registries do not provide commercial services under consumer law. It held that delays in supplying certified copies relate to judicial administration and cannot be examined by consumer forums.
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, clearly holding that courts and their registries do not provide “commercial services” under consumer protection laws.
In an order delivered on December 11, the Consumer Commission ruled that when a court registry provides certified copies of judicial records, it is performing a statutory duty and not offering any commercial service. The Commission observed that courts exist to administer justice and maintain official records as part of their legal responsibility, and not for earning profits.
The complaint was filed in 2018 by a 27-year-old law graduate who alleged deficiency in service on the part of the court registry due to a delay in receiving certified copies of court proceedings. According to PTI, the complainant had applied for certified copies related to a civil case from the year 2002 and had deposited an initial amount of ₹200 with the registry.
After examining the matter, the Consumer Commission rejected the complaint and held that the relationship between a litigant and a court registry cannot be treated as a commercial or contractual relationship.
The Commission noted that such interactions are governed by statutory rules, procedural laws, and the civil manual, and not by the Consumer Protection Act.
“The relationship between a litigant and a court registry is not a contractual or commercial relationship in the ordinary sense,”
the Commission observed. It further clarified that consumer courts are not meant to supervise judicial administration or interfere with the internal functioning of courts.
Calling the complaint misconceived, the Commission stated that the case was an attempt to wrongly convert an administrative or judicial grievance into a consumer dispute.
It explained that consumer law does not allow such a conversion, especially when the acts complained of arise from statutory or judicial functions and the fees involved are fixed by law.
The Commission also stressed that if a person has a grievance against a court registry, the proper remedies lie within the judicial system itself. These include approaching the concerned judge, making a representation to the Additional Registrar, or filing a writ petition before the High Court.
During the proceedings, the Registrar explained that the complainant was not a party to the original civil suit and, therefore, could obtain certified copies only after securing a judicial order. The registry further pointed out that the delay was also caused because deficit charges amounting to ₹274 had not been paid by the complainant.
The Consumer Commission accepted this explanation and observed that once the judicial order was passed, the application for certified copies was processed without undue delay.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Examines Uniform Pay for Consumer Commission Members Across States
The Commission held,
“The procedural bar of deficit charges remaining unpaid, the statutory nature of certified copies, and the public policy underpinning the exclusion of judicial administration from consumer supervision mean the complaint fails on both facts and law,”
The Consumer Commission also ruled that the complainant did not satisfy the basic legal requirements to be treated as a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act.
The order stated,
“A litigant seeking certified copies is merely availing a statutory right. There is no hiring of a service. Thus, the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer,”
Concluding that it had no jurisdiction to examine matters related to court administration or judicial procedures, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the complaint in its entirety.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Consumer Commission
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
