The main legal point established in the judgment is that the complainant's failure to pay the required fee for issuance of certified copies of documents rendered him ineligible to be considered a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Deficiency in Service - Section 17(a)(i) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - [Section 17(a)(i) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986] - The court discussed the provisions of Rule 203(A) of A.P. Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990, Rule 188 of Civil Rules of Practice, and the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court also referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble National Commission in Shri Prabhakar Vyankoba Aadone v. Superintendent, Civil Court, R.P. No. 2135 of 2000 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocates Bar Assn, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344, to interpret the legal provisions and their applicability to the case. The court emphasized the requirement of payment for issuance of certified copies and the administrative functions of the opposite parties in providing the service.
Fact of the Case:

The complainant alleged deficiency in service against the Superintendent, Central Copying Section, District and Sessions Court, Sanga Reddy, Medak District and two others, seeking direction to pay exemplary damages/compensation of Rs. 37,88,300 together with costs of Rs. 10,000. The complainant faced delays and obstacles in obtaining certified copies of documents and sought compensation for mental agony.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the complainant did not pay the required fee for issuance of certified copies of documents, and therefore, did not come under the definition of consumer. The court dismissed the complaint, ruling that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
Issues: The issues considered by the court were: 1. Jurisdiction of the commission to entertain the matter 2. Existence of deficiency in service 3. Entitlement of the complainant for the relief sought for
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant did not pay the required fee for issuance of certified copies of documents, and therefore, did not come under the definition of consumer. As a result, the court dismissed the complaint.
Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

ORDER

Mr. Thota Ashok Kumar, Member -This complaint is filed under Section 17(a)(i) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the Superintendent, Central Copying Section, District and Sessions Court, Sanga Reddy, Medak District and two others seeking direction to pay exemplary damages/compensation of Rs. 37,88,300 together with costs of Rs. 10,000.

2. The facts leading to the present case in brief are that the Station House Officer P.S. Indra Karan, Ordnance Factory Medak filed final report in FIR 06 of 2010 at SHO/PS Indra Karan, Ordnance Factory, Medak Estate, Yedumailaram, Medak District before Addl Judicial First Class Magistrate Sanga Reddy (AJFCM). On 5.5.2010 assailing the final report the complainant filed protest petition under the provisions of Cr.P.C. before AJFCM concerned and the opposite party No. 2 postponed it till the middle of July 2010. The complainant due to sickness did not attend the Court on the date of adjournment and thereafter on 4.8.2010 the opposite party No. 2 returned the protest petition as not maintainable. The complainant after compliance of the objections resubmitted protest petition. When the opposite party No. 2 did not place the petition before AJFCM, the complainant lodged a complaint dated 16.8.2010 before the Prl. District Judge, Medak. Then the opposite party No. 2 placed protest petition before AJFCM and it was numbered as CFR Nos. 1777 and 1778 of 2010. Later both the CFRs were adjourned several times till 18.11.2010. The complainant made a complaint dated 29.11.2010 to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of A.P. and Principal District Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy. On 14.2.2011 AJFCM directed the complainant to file documents as prosecution exhibits on 24.2.2011 and the complainant filed 272 documents in CFR No. 1777 of 2010 and one document in CFR No. 1778 of 2010 as prosecution exhibits. Since repeated adjournments were given infringing his fundamental rights, the complainant had sent a copy application by paying application fees of Rs. 1 to the opposite party No. 1 by registered post for certified copies of documents under Rule 203(A) of A.P. Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990.

3. The complainant simultaneously submitted an application under RTI dated 2.5.2011 to Public Information Officer/Prl. Dist. and Sessions Court and sought for the documents prayed in copy application. The opposite party No. 2 returned the copy application dated 2.5.2011 to the opposite party No. 1 on the premise that the certified copies of all exhibits in CFR No. 1777 and 1778 of 2010 are not marked as exhibits. The Public Information Officer/Prl. District and Sessions Court also failed to respond to the application under RTI and the complainant got issued notice dated 9.8.2011. The opposite parties gave reply to it informing the complainant that the statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigation Officer in FIR No. 6 of 2010 are not available in the Court of AJFCM.

4. The complainant submits that he did not file the copy application for documents related to third party proceedings and moreover Rule 203(A) of A.P. Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 does not debar any one taking certified copies of documents until they are marked by the Court. Since AJFCM is not taking any decision on protest petition, the complainant filed a petition under Section 408, Cr.P.C. before the Addl Prl. District and Sessions Judge for its transfer to any other Court. On 19.7.2012 the Court declined to transfer the protest petition and granted relief for its disposal as early as possible. Thereafter the protest petition was repeatedly adjourned till the first week of November 2012 on which date the protest petition was placed before AJFCM without the prosecution exhibits and the AJFCM passed oral instructions to the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 for their tracing the said exhibits and adjourned the case to 20.11.2012. On the said date, the complainant appeared before the Court but

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis