Consumer commission dismisses complaint against court registrar over certified copies delay | Mumbai News

Mumbai: In an important ruling clarifying the boundaries between judicial administration and consumer law, the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed a complaint against the Registrar of the Bombay City Civil & Sessions Court. The commission held that litigants seeking certified copies of court records are not “consumers” and that the functioning of a court registry does not constitute a “commercial service”.“The court does not run a commercial enterprise to supply copies for profit; it administers justice and maintains court records. The law recognises a distinction between a charge levied under statutory rules and consideration paid under a contract for a commercial service,” the commission said. The commission further said that the fees paid for court documents are statutory levies rather than commercial “consideration” for profit.“Several reported decisions of superior courts have accordingly drawn the distinction between statutory/sovereign functions and commercial services and have held that consumer fora cannot be used to question or supervise the judicial or quasi-judicial functioning of courts and similar institutions. The principle is not that administrative errors never give rise to any remedy; rather, the correct forum and the correct legal vehicle for redress are the judicial or administrative channels established for that purpose. Similarly, decisions held that statutory fees collected by courts are not to be equated with “consideration” paid for a commercial service so as to create a consumer-vendor relation,” the commission said.The dispute originated when Mitesh Varshney, a law graduate, filed a complaint alleging a deficiency in service by the court’s registry. Varshney applied for certified copies of a 2002 suit in Sept 2018, citing an urgent need for the documents in a separate matter involving illegal construction. Despite paying an initial deposit and following up repeatedly, Varshney claimed the delay in receiving the documents caused significant mental and physical stress, leading to a demand for compensation and reimbursement of legal and travel expenses.The Registrar of the City Civil Court countered the allegations by placing the timeline within the framework of the Civil Manual. The registry explained that because Varshney was a third party to the original suit, the application could not be processed automatically and required a judicial order from a judge. Documents showed that while the judge granted permission in Oct 2018 and the copies were prepared shortly thereafter, Varshney failed to pay a deficit of Rs 274 in copying charges. Consequently, the application remained “under objection” in accordance with standard court procedure.The commission observed that the relationship between a litigant and a court registry is statutory, not contractual. “The relationship between an ordinary litigant and the 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 noted.Addressing the attempt to use consumer forums to oversee court staff, the commission ruled that such a move would undermine the judicial hierarchy. The commission stated that grievances against a registry should be addressed through internal administrative channels or the High Court rather than a consumer commission.“Consumer fora are not designed to supervise judicial administration or the internal working of courts. To treat such procedural compliance as a deficiency would upend the statutory scheme and enable litigants to turn administrative objections into actionable consumer complaints.”Citing Supreme Court precedents, the commission reiterated that sovereign and judicial functions remain outside the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. The commission concluded that Varshney failed to establish a “consumer-service provider” relationship. “A 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 complaint was ultimately dismissed for want of jurisdiction, with the commission clarifying that it expressed no view on any other legal remedies Varshney might pursue within the judicial hierarchy.