Mr. Justice S.K. Dubey, President—This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.8.1999 passed in Case No. 121/1998 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshangabad (for short the ‘District Forum’) whereby the complaint for deficiency in service for non-supply of certified copies of certain documents of the Municipal Record inspite of deposit of Rs. 10/- as fee, was allowed with an order to supply certified copies within a period of 30 days of all the documents and to pay compensation of Rs. 800/- along with Rs. 200/- as costs of the proceedings.

2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that merely applying for certified copies by the applicant on payment of requisite fees, the complainant does not become a consumer to invoke the jurisdiction of the Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ‘Act’) as there is no question of hiring of service is involved. Counsel cited decisions of Punjab and Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions in cases of Gianchand v. Executive Officer, Municipal Committee & Anr., III (1995) CPJ 542, and S. Sadrul Haque v. The Inspector General of Registration, I (1995) CPJ 181.

3. The submission deserves consideration as merely applying for supply of certified copy on payment of requisite fee as provided under Section 355(1) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 does not involve hiring or rendering of service for consideration. This Commission in Prabhari Adhikari, Nakal Shakha & Ors. v. Jagdish Prasad Gautam, 2001 (2) CON.LT 222, a case where the complainant applied for grant of copies of revenue records, map under the Madhya Pradesh Revenue Records Rules, 1959 framed under Section 256 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 which deals with the manner, procedure and procedure to be followed for inspection of records presentation of application and payment of charges preparation and delivery of copies, maintenance of registers and accounts, supervisions, etc. observed in paras 5 to 9 thus :

“5. From a bare look to Section 256 of the Code and Rules it is evidently clear that for supply of copies the statutory provisions have been made. Copying charges or the fee is not charged as consideration for rendering or hiring of any service. The Revenue authorities in supply of copies discharge their functions and duties in the matter provided in Section 256 of the Code and the Rules. Therefore, if any Revenue Authority or Government servants fails to discharge their duties in not supplying the certified copies, remedy for the aggrieved person is not under the Act, is elsewhere.

6. The Supreme Court in case of S.P. Goel v. Collector of Stamps, Delhi, I (1996) CPJ 11 (SC), case where the documents was presented for the registration, the Sub-Registrar under Registration Act and Stamps Act, instead of registering it impounded and sent the documents to Collector of Stamps, on that the Collector of Stamps called the various informations. During pendency of that the complaint was filed before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint and awarded compensation. The State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum and enhanced the amount of compensation. In revision, the National Commission held that the complainant was not a consumer. Against which the SLP was filed, wherein the Supreme Court in paras 32 to 34 observed thus :

“32. Running through the twin Acts, namely, the Registration Act, and the Stamps Act, we could not, at any stage, reconcile ourselves to the idea spoused by the appellant’s Counsel that there is an element of communication involved in the whole process of registration of instruments or payment of Stamp Duty and that the executant of an instrument, at the time of its presentation for registration, becomes a “consumer” entitled to “service” within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. The reasons are many.

33. The Registration Act as also the Stamps Act are meant primarily to augment the State revenue by prescribing the stam