Gian Chand vs EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

VIDE this order. Appeal Nos. 15 and 16 of 1995 are being disposed of as common question of law is involved. Facts are taken from Appeal No. 15 of 1995.

GIAN Chand, appellant applied to Municipal Committee, Raikot, District Ludhiana for obtaining certified copies of its records, plans etc. His request was not acceded to that he moved a complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act before the District Forum, Ludhiana. On notice of the same, the opposite party contested inter alia asserting that the complaint was not maintainable. The complainant had no locus standi as he was not a consumer as defined under the Act and there was no deficiency of service either in not entertaining the application for supply of copies or for not entertaining the application for not supplying the same. The District Forum vide its order dated 10.3.95 dismissed the complaint inter alia holding that the complainant was not a consumer as defined and there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. We have heard the appellant and Counsel for the respondent. We find no merit in the appeals.

The appellants who have argued the case themselves vehemently stressed that the public is entitled to supply of copies of public documents on payment of the requisite fees. This was so stated finding support from Section 76 of the Evidence Act. The question in the present case to be considered is as to whether the complainant can be treated as a consumer as defined to invoke the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum for the grant of the relief and not as to whether under any other provision of the statute or the rules framed thereunder, the complainants are entitled to or deserve to be granted copies of the public documents. The agencies established under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act have jurisdiction to entertain complaints with regard to consumer disputes as defined. In order to find out existence of any consumer dispute between the complainant and the opposite party, it is necessary to refer to the definition of a consumer who only can be a complainant in the complaint filed under the provisions of the Act. The word consumer has been defined under Section 2(d) of the Act as under:- "(d) "consumer" means any person who:- (i) buy any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purposes; or (ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person."

A perusal of the definition of the consumer as reproduced above indicates two situations where aggrieved person could be described as a consumer. One relates to a purchaser in the purchase of goods on payment of price. This Clause (i) is not attracted to the case in hand for the simple reason that there had been no such sale of goods. The emphasis during arguments has been placed on Clause (ii) of Sub-section (d) of Section 2 of the Act. Contention of the appellants is that it is on payment of the requisite fees that they are to be supplied certified copies of the documents and they would be consumers as defined. It being statutory duty of the authorities, a direction could be given to supply documents to the complainants under Section 14 of the Act. This contention is devoid of merit. There is no question of hiring services of the opposite party by merely filing an application for the supply of copies of public documents that it could be said that there would be deficiency of service or that the appellants were consumers as defined. Such a matter was considered by the State Commission Bihar in S. Sadrul Haque v. The Inspector General of Registration, I (1995) CPJ 181=1995 (1) CPC 31. That was a case of non supply of the copies of the documents in time that the complainants claimed compensation for harassment. It was held that the relief sought by the complainant could not be granted under the Consumer Protection Act. It could not be held that the complainant had hired the services of the opposite party. He applied for issuance of certificate to be true copies of certain documents. Thus he was not a consumer under the Act. The position in the present case is also akin. By merely applying for supplying certified copies on payment of requisite fees, the complainant cannot be held to be a consumer to invoke the jurisdiction of the Forum under the Act. Both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.