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 amount to “commercial services” under consumer law.
In an order delivered on December 11, the consumer commission ruled that a court registry does not function as a commercial enterprise when it supplies certified copies of judicial records. The panel observed that courts administer justice and maintain records as part of their statutory duties, not for profit.
The complaint was filed in 2018 by a 27-year-old law graduate, who alleged deficiency in service due to a delay in receiving certified copies of proceedings in a civil suit. According to PTI, the complainant had applied for copies relating to a 2002 case and deposited an initial amount of Rs 200 with the court registry.
Rejecting the plea, the commission held that the relationship between a litigant and a court registry is not contractual or commercial in nature. It said such a relationship is governed by statutory rules, procedural law, 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 noted. It added that consumer fora are not meant to oversee judicial administration or the internal functioning of courts. Describing the complaint as misconceived, the panel said it was an attempt to convert an administrative or judicial grievance into a consumer dispute.
The commission further clarified that consumer law does not permit such a transposition when the acts complained of are statutory or judicial and the fees involved are prescribed by law. It stressed that grievances against court registries must be addressed within the judicial system itself, such as by 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 suit and could receive certified copies only after obtaining a judicial order. The registry also pointed out that the delay was partly due to unpaid deficit charges amounting to Rs 274. The commission accepted this explanation and noted that the application was processed promptly once the judicial order was passed.
“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 commission held.
It also ruled that the complainant did not meet the basic requirements of a consumer under the law. “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,” the order stated.
Concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate matters relating to court administration, the commission dismissed the complaint in its entirety.
