G.SELVIN JOYAL vs SUB REGISTRAR'S (HOUSING) OFFICE

THE appeal is directed against the order dated 24.8.1998 in O.P. No. 53/1998 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum , Tirunelveli.

THE appellant is the complainant while the respondent is the opposite party. The gravamen of accusation is that the non-grant of a certified copy of a specified certificate as applied for on payment of a prescribed fee by the opposite party would tantamount to deficiency in service. The opposite party of course despite service of summons did not choose to appear and contest the matter and remained ex parte.

The Forum below however on consideration of the materials placed on record dismissed the complaint without costs.

AGGRIEVED by the order as above, the complainant resorted to the present action. He did not engage a Counsel of his choice. On service of process, the respondent/opposite party entered appearance through a Counsel of his choice namely learned Counsel Mr. R. Thirugnanam, City Government Pleader. When the matter came up for hearing before us today, the complainant is not present. However, he has sent a letter by post to this Commission stating that he was unable to travel to Madras and project his hues of views and the matter may be decided in his absence on merits.

WE heard the arguments of learned Counsel Mr. M. Sivaraman representing learned Counsel Mr. R. Thirugnanam, Central Government Pleader appearing for the opposite party and also perused the materials placed on record. No doubt true it is that the complainant remitted a sum of Rs. 23/- to the Government by way of a challan for getting the certified copy of a specified certificate. The fee he has paid can never be construed as a consideration as a service to be rendered by the Government through the medium of the opposite party. The opposite party after all is discharging the statutory functions. Such discharge of statutory functions can never be construed as service as contemplated by Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, "the Act"). If there is no service, the question of payment of consideration is of no consequence. We are also, however, of the view that the payment of the fee of Rs. 23/- for the certified copy of a specified certificate cannot at all be construed as consideration inasmuch as the fee paid for getting the certified copy is a statutory levy to augment the revenue of the Government. Viewed from any angle, the complainant cannot at all be construed as a consumer qua the opposite party. The dismissal of the complaint by the Forum below in such circumstances cannot at all be stated to be not sustainable in law. The appeal as such deserves to be dismissed.

IN fine, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. We however make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Appeal dismissed.