The charging of additional cost of Rs. 45 /- by the Copying Agency for the supply of the copy applied for by the respondent can be termed as a consideration for the supply of such a copy, and the respondent is a consumer and that this dispute is within the ambit of consumer dispute.

Mr. Justice P.N. Nag, President — The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

This appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Forum dated 18.6.96, whereby the District Forum has ordered the opposite party "hereinafter to be referred to as the appellant" to refund the amount to the complainant "hereinafter to be referred to as the respondent" as sum of Rs. 45/- and also to pay an amount of Rs. 550/- as compensation within a period of six weeks. In case, of failure on the part of the appellant to make payment to the respondent, the respondent becomes entitled to receive the aforementioned amount together with interest@ 15% per annum from the date of presentation of the complaint i.e.,6.11.95, till the date of actual payment. Costs of Rs. 400/- has also been awarded.

2. The brief relevant facts which emerged from the pleadings of the parties arc that the respondent applied for a copy of AKS-MUSAVI Bandobast for the year, 1981-82 of Mohal Samal, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, on 22/23 September, 1995. The Court fee as prescribed under the Rules, contained in the Copying Agency Manual, was also affixed alongwith the application. When the respondent went to the appellants to collect the copy, he was told that the copy of the AKS-MUSAVI Bandobast cannot be delivered if extra amount of Rs. 45/- was not paid in cash. Copy no doubt was later on delivered to the respondent but that on payment of Rs. 45/- in addition as cash. According to the respondent/ complainant, the appellants cannot charge Rs. 45/- as addition to the fee fixed under the rules which he has already paid and on that ground, the respondent has been charged arbitrarily and the appellants are not entitled to charge Rs.45/- from the respondent on account of addition to the Court fee.

3. We have heard Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, ADA on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Uma Chander Prasher for the respondents. Mr. Aggarwal has tried to substantiate that the fee of Rs. 45/- has been charged by the appellants towards cost of paper which are used for preparing the copy as per the norms fixed by the Deputy Commissioner. This is an admitted position that under the rules such additional fee of Rs. 45/- cannot be charged and the norms fixed by the Deputy Commissioner on this account violates the rules of the Copying Agency and, therefore, the instructions to this extent cannot be taken into account, the instructions being contrary to the rules.

4. Mr. Aggarwal, ADA, next contends that this dispute regarding supply of copy by the Copying Agency of the Revenue Record does not come within the ambit of consumer dispute. This contention is also clearly devoid of any force.

5. In this context it may be noticed that the respondent has confined his challenge only to the charging of Rs. 45/- in cash as an additional cost for the supply of the copy and not to the fees charged under the rules. At the cost of repetition, it may be reiterated that this additional amount of Rs. 45/- in cash is charged by the appellant under the administrative norms fixed by the Deputy Commissioner and has no statutory force. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the question that arises for consideration is whether or not the charging of additional cost of Rs. 45 /- by the Copying Agency for the supply of the copy applied for by the respondent can be termed as a consideration for the supply of such a copy? In our opinion, it would not be unreasonable to hold that the amount of Rs. 45 / - can definitely be termed as a consideration for the supply of such a copy.

Once it is held that an additional amount of Rs. 45/- charged by the appellant for the supply of copy is a consideration for the services rendered by the Copying Agency, there is no difficulty to hold that the respondent is a consumer and that this dispute is within the ambit of consumer dispute.

Section 2(d)(ii) provides that consumer means any person who;

('hires or avails of) any services for a Consideration which has been paid or prom