Government officials' services do not fall within the definition of 'service' under the Consumer Protection Act.

Thiru Justice M.S. Janarthanam, President—This appeal is directed against order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagercoil, dismissing the complaint without costs.

2. The complainant Soosai @ Joseph Izidore instituted a complaint before the Forum below for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 7 officials of the State Government in not effecting sub-division of his landed property the title of which had been declared by a competent Civil Court.

3. The opposite parties Government officials would contend that no sub-division should be measured unless in the case of occupied sub-divisions.

4. The Forum below dismissed the complaint on its merits saying that in respect of the land to be sub-divided, no materials forth came to identify the said property and consequently sub-division was not feasible.

5. The aggrieved complainant resorted to the present action.

6. The complainant without engaging a Counsel of his choice he himself argued the case and aired his projections of views in this matter.

7. Arguments of learned Counsel, Mr. M. Sivaraman, representing learned Counsel Mr. R. Thirugnanam, City Government Pleader, representing the respondents 1 to 7 Government officials were heard. The said learned Counsel representing the said Government Pleader would submit that though no plea was taken in the objections filed before the Forum below to the effect that the act of the Government officials like the respondents 1 to 7 may not at all fall within the purview of the sanguine provisions adumbrated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (hereinafter referred to “the Act”) yet, such a plea by way of an argument is capable of being taken before this Commission at this stage inasmuch as such a question is a pure question of law.

8. No doubt true, it is that no plea regarding the maintainability of the complaint had been taken by the opposite parties in the objections filed before the Forum below. Since such a question is pure question of law as had been contended by the said learned Counsel Mr. M. Sivaraman the same can be raised at any stage and, therefore it is, we permit such a question to be raised before us. There is no pale of controversy that the opposite parties 1 to 7 are Government officials in the pay rolls of the Government. Such being the case they are to discharge their official duties in the manner expected of them of course also in accordance with law. While discharging their functions as Government officials they in fact do some sort of a service to the public at large. But such sort of a service as rendered can by no stretch of imagination be stated to have been construed as service in respect of which consideration has been paid by the member of the public for whose benefit the service was rendered. Therefore the services of Government officials like the opposite parties 1 to 7 cannot at all be construed as service falling within the four corners of the definition clause of service as adumbrated in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. Their services not being a service under the said definition, their act can never come at all within the purview of the Act.

9. Worthwhile it is to pen down here the hues of views as expressed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the Collector of Stamps v. Goel S. Pal & Anr., II (1995) CPJ 216 (NC) :

“The Collector, assuming was discharging a service, was doing the same as a functionary of the Government acting under the authority of a statute and for the benefit of the revenue for which he was being paid by the Government and not by the complainant. Salaries paid to the Government officials in discharge of governmental functions can in law never be said to be a consideration paid by a member of public for availing the services of the Government. Take the case of a litigant who pays Court fees for institution of legal proceedings before the Court of law properly so constituted, it cannot in law be said that the litigant has hired th