Back
D.P.WADHWA, J.K.MEHRA, RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, B.K.TAIMNI
PRABHAKAR VYANKOBA AADONE – Appellant
Versus
SUPERINTENDENT, CIVIL COURT – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The applicant requesting a certified copy of a judicial order by depositing a fee is classified as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act. The process involved in applying for, preparing, and delivering such a copy constitutes a service under the Act (!) .
The supply of certified copies by a civil court is governed by statutory provisions, including the Civil Procedure Code, rules of the concerned High Court, and the Court Fees Act. These functions are administrative/statutory in nature and are subject to judicial review if there are deficiencies (!) (!) (!) .
The act of issuing certified copies is not a sovereign function but an administrative one. Therefore, deficiencies in this service can be challenged under the Consumer Protection Act (!) (!) .
The delay in providing certified copies, especially when paid for on an urgent basis, can constitute deficiency in service if there is negligence or unreasonable delay. Such delays can be subject to redressal under the Consumer Protection Act (!) (!) (!) .
The distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions has evolved, with many activities previously considered sovereign now recognized as administrative functions, thus making them amenable to consumer protection laws (!) .
Judicial officers may be protected from legal proceedings regarding their judicial functions but are not immune when performing administrative functions like issuing certified copies. The performance of these administrative functions can be reviewed and challenged (!) .
In this case, the court upheld the view that the process of application, preparation, and delivery of certified copies is a service, and the applicant qualifies as a consumer. The delay and deficiency in providing the certified copy were recognized as grounds for redress (!) .
The impugned order dismissing the complaint was set aside, and the order of the lower forum was upheld, emphasizing that the functions involved are administrative and subject to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance with specific legal interpretations.
ORDER
J.K. Mehra, 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.
2. 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.
3. In view of the important issue involved we appointed Mr. Murlidharan as amicus curiae to assist the Commission in this ma
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
