Court doesn't run commercial enterprise: Consumer panel rejecting complaint against Registrar

Mumbai, Dec 29 (PTI) A consumer commission here has dismissed a law student's complaint against the registrar of the city civil and sessions court, ruling that judicial administrative functions do not fall under the ambit of "commercial services".

The court does not run a commercial enterprise to supply copies for profit, the commission said.

It administers justice and maintains court records, the commission asserted.

A 27-year-old law graduate had filed a complaint in 2018 against the Registrar of the Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court for failing to provide in time certified copies of proceedings in a civil matter. The complainant had alleged "deficiency in service" on part of the registrar.

In a verdict delivered on December 11, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (South Mumbai) ruled that the relationship between a litigant and a court registry "is not a contractual or commercial relationship in the ordinary sense".

It is a statutory relationship governed by procedural rules and the civil manual, the commission said.

"Consumer fora is not designed to supervise judicial administration or the internal working of courts. The complaint is an attempt to transpose an administrative-judicial grievance into a consumer dispute," the commission said.

It emphasised that "the law does not permit that transposition where the underlying acts are statutory or judicial in nature and where the fees are statutory in character".

The commission underlined that the suitable forum for redress of grievances against a court's registry lies within the judicial administration itself.

"The appropriate forums for such grievances are the judicial hierarchy itself, such as an application to the concerned judge, a complaint to the additional registrar, or a writ petition in the High Court," the commission clarified.

The complainant had claimed that after applying for certified copies of proceedings in a 2002 suit and paying an initial deposit of Rs 200, the registry failed to deliver the documents in a timely manner.

The Registrar contended the complainant was not a party to the original suit and that his application required a judicial order from a judge before copies could be released. It maintained the documents were not delivered solely because of the complainant's failure to pay deficit charges of Rs 274.

The commission acknowledged that the registry processed the application after due judicial order and prepared copies promptly.

"The procedural bar of deficit charges remaining unpaid; the statutory character of the supply of certified copies; and the public policy underpinning the exclusion of judicial administration from consumer supervision; the complaint fails both on facts and law," the commission said.

The complainant has not established the essential ingredients of a consumer grievance, it said.

"Litigant seeking certified copies is merely availing a statutory right. There is no hiring service. Thus, the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer," the commission said.

It said the complaint is "wholly misconceived and not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act".

The commission also lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon acts of court administration, the order stated. PTI AVI BNM