Shri Prabhakar Vyankoba Aadone                ---- Petitioner
                        Vs.
Supreintendent, Civil Court                           ---- Respondent

Before: Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.P.Wadhwa, President, Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K.Mehra, Member, Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member, Mr. B.K.Taimni, Member.

Per J.K.Mehra, J. Member

      This Revision Petition is filed against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, rejecting the appeal of the Petitioner in his absence. The Respondent is a Superintendent of Civil Court, Senior Division, Solapur against whom a complaint was filed alleging delay in issuance of certified copy of the judgment by the office of the Respondent. The District Forum awarded compensation of Rs.250/- and costs of Rs.250/- holding that there is deficiency in service by the Appellant and further holding that the Complainant was consumer qua the Appellant. The State Commission upset the finding on the basis that the Appellant being a government agency was exercising sovereign function and any deficiency in service arising would not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the consumer fora functioning under the Consumer Protection Act. The order of the District Forum was set aside and the complaint was dismissed. The Complainant has filed this revision feeling aggrieved by the said order of the State Commission.

     In view of the important issue involved we appointed Mr. Murlidharan as Amicus curiae to assist the Commission in this matter.

     The facts leading to the present case in brief are as under:
Civil Court at Solapur passed an order dated 27-7-1994 in a suit, RCS 364/93, in which the Petitioner is a party. The Petitioner filed an application on 4-8-1994 for an urgent certified copy of the order dated 27-7-1994 passed by the Civil Court in RCS 364/93 under day application No. 2377/94 vide receipt No. 008228 dated 4-8-1994, he paid a fee of Rs.20/- for an urgent certified copy. The certified copy had to be normally given to the Petitioner within 3 days from the date of the application. The papers relating to the order dated 27-7-1994 in RCS 364/93 were received by the copying department on 12-8-1994 from Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur. The photocopying machine of the copying department went out of order on 18-8-1994. Having failed to obtain certified copy, the Petitioner filed a complaint being CC No.15/95 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur, against the Superintendent, Civil Judge, Senior Division (CJSD), Solapur. The Complainant prayed for supply of certified copy of the order dated 27-7-1994 in RCS 364/93, Rs.250/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.250/- as costs. It was thereafter that the original papers were forwarded on 30-9-1994 to the criminal court for copying and the certified copy of the order dated 27-7-1994 was ultimately given to the Petitioner on 12-10-1994. The Respondent filed its written statement on 13-6-1995 taking the defence, inter alia, that the supply of certified copy is not a service and accordingly the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On merits it was contended that the delay in supply of certified copy was due to valid and bona fide reasons and that there was no deficiency in service. The Respondent filed exhibits to show that the xerox machine was not working at the relevant time and that the copies had to be prepared by sending the papers to a different court. By its order dated 16-2-1998 the District Forum allowed the complaint CC No.15/95, directed the Respondent to pay Rs.250/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.250/- towards costs.

     The two issues framed by the District Forum were:
(1) Whether the Complainant is a Consumer within the meaning of the Act?
(2) Whether there is any deficiency in service of the opponent?

     The issues which were answered by the District Forum were as under:
(1) It was obligatory on the part of the opponent to give the copy in three days, as the fees which was paid was for urgent charges. "The Complainant is a consumer and he has a right to get service in the form of copies".

(2) (a) There is a deliberate negligence on the part of the Respondent which may be termed as deficiency in service.
(b) The papers of Complainant were received on 12-8-1994, the xerox machine of civil court was not working from 18-8-1994. In these circumstances after receiving the papers on 12-8-1994 and the application of Complainant being urgent and extra fee was paid, then there is no reasonable explanation by the opponent as to why the copies were not prepared between 12-8-1994 to 18-8-1994.
(c) It is not understandable as to why the papers were not sent to the criminal court between 18-8-1994 to 30-9-1994. Thus, it evidently shows that there is an inordinate delay in giving the copies.
(d) Giving of certified copies is not a judicial service, but it is an administrative service.

     The Respondent filed Appeal No. 532/1998 before the State Commission, Maharashtra. On the date of the hearing of the appeal, neither the appellant nor the Respondent were present. Nevertheless, the State Commission by its order dated 19-7-2000 allowed the appeal holding that:
     "The Appellant being a Government Agency was exercising sovereign function and any deficiency in service; assuming there are, not amenable to the jurisdiction of consumer fora functioning under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. To be precise, the duties being discharged were under the sovereign functions and are immune therefrom".

     The Petitioner filed the present petition before this Commission under Sec.21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. By its order dated 4-9-2001, this Commission formulated the following question which arose for decision in the case:
     "Is the supply of certified copy by copying agency of a civil court a sovereign function or is it rendering of 'service' under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act?"

     Let us consider the law on this point.

     The term 'service' in Sec.2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('Act') contemplates any service which is rendered for a consideration. Such services may be for any commercial activity and may also relate to any of the services as indicated under Sec.2(1)(o) of the Act. For instance, a subscriber to a Provident Fund scheme has been held to be a consumer and the processing of his claim by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to be a service within the meaning of the Act. (Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi (2000) 1 SCC 98.)

     The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P.Goel vs. Collector of Stamps, Delhi (1996) 1 SCC 573 which held that a person who presents a document for registration and pays stamp duty does not become a consumer and that the officers appointed under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 do not render any 'service' under the Consumer Protection Act is in the context of the finding of the court that Collector of Stamps performs a judicial function. The decision itself indicates that "as far as the officers of the court are concerned the position is a little different". In S.P.Goel, the Supreme Court was not considering the question of other officers. It is significant that the above decision has been noticed in the later decision in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi (2000) 1 SCC 98 @ 105 where it was held that the facility provided by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is a 'service' under the Act.

        Any person who pays money as the price or cost of goods and service is covered under the comprehensive definition of the word 'consumer'. (Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs. Kartik Das (1994) 4 SCC 225 @ 239, para 26. Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K.Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243 @ 253 and 255.)

     The application for the certified copy of an order made by a court, its processing and its delivery are governed by statutory provisions. In particular, the following statutes and rules apply:

     (i) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Order XX Rule 20 and the rules made thereunder.
     (ii) Rules of the concerned High Court regarding application for certified copies and the preparation and delivery of such copies.
     (iii) The Court Fees Act, 1870, Sec.6 read with Schedule I (Entry No. 6) thereof.

     The above functions are governed by statutes and are statutory administrative functions. Thus, the failures/omissions in the performance of these functions is amenable to judicial review.

     It may be noted that the concept of sovereign function has undergone changes and in a welfare state, where the activities of the government extend to several spheres, the distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign for the purpose of immunity has largely disappeared. (N.Nagendra Rao vs. State of AP (1194) 6 SCC 205 @ 235, pr. 25; Common Cause vs. Union of India (1999) 6 SCC 667 @ 716; Chairman, Railway Board vs. Chandrima Das (2000) 2 SCC 465 @ 485, pr.41, and State of A.P. Vs. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy (2000) 5 SCC 712 @ 726-727.) 

     While judicial officers may be protected frombeing arrayed in legal proceedings for their judicial function, (eg. See Sec. 28 of the Act) they do not enjoy such immunity for the administrative functions performed by them or by their staff. For instance, the functions performed by High Court in its administrative side are amendable to judicial review in its judicial side, See R.C.Sood vs. High Court of Rajasthan (1994) supp. 3 SCC 711; High Court of Judicature, Rajasthan vs. Ramesh Chandra Paliwal (1998) 3 SCC 72 @ 85, para.30.

     The grant of certified copies of order of courts is not a sovereign function but is an administrative function. Since this is not a judicial function, it does not partake the character of a 'sovereign function'. 

     We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that an applicant for certified copy of a judicial order, who deposits a fee for obtaining such copy is a "consumer" within the meaning of the act and the proceeding of such application and the preparation and delivery of the copy in consideration of the copying charges / fee by the concerned staff attached to the court would be a service within the meaning of the Act.

     In the light of the above discussion, we cannot sustain the impugned order which is hereby set aside. The order of the District Forum is upheld. In the peculiar facts of this case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Before parting with we place on record our appreciation of the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Murlidharan, the amicus curiae appointed in this case.