Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 12.11.2010 passed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal in Appeal No. JA/10/2348. By the said order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the order dated 13.9.2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Gwalior in Complaint Case No.543 of 2010 by which the said Forum had held that the complainant was not a consumer and not a complainant and, therefore, was not entitled to file a complaint before the Consumer Forum. 2. We have heard the petitioner in person but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the respondent – State of M.P., its Tehsildar at Gwalior as none appeared for them despite issuance of notice as far back as on 10.1.2011 which we presume must have been served on the respondent. In support of his contention that the fora below have erred in holding that he was not a consumer and so not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of consumer fora. In this regard, complainant seeks support from a decision of the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack where in similar circumstances the said Commission took the following view:- “Held: The Act applied to all goods and services as provided in Section 1(3). Definition of ‘Service’ in Section 2(o) is inclusive definition to mean service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with conveying of information but does not include the rendering of service free of charge or under contract of personal service. A certified copy conveys informations of the contents of a document. Facility is provided in the Orissa Records Manual for obtaining certified copy where procedure has been laid down. Certified copy of a public document though a secondary evidence under the Evidence Act is admissible in evidence without primary evidence being laid in any Court or tribunal. Information conveyed by it is authentic. A certified copy is granted on payment of fees prescribed. Fee is that which is paid for the service to be rendered. It is distinct from tax. Thus, grant of certified copy is a service rendered on payment for conveying information in respect of contents of a document. Since complainant has paid for such service to be rendered, he is a consumer and can make a complaint under the Act where there is deficiency in service.” 3. The issue was also the subject matter of a decision of this Commission in the case of Shri Prabhakar Vyankoba Aadone vs. Superintendent Civil Court, 1986-2004 Consumer 7211 (NS). This Commission considered the question with reference to several earlier decisions and held as under:- “14. While judicial officers may be protected from being arrayed in legal proceedings for their judicial function (e.g. See Sec. 28 of the Act) they do not enjoy immunity for the administrative functions performed by them or by their staff. For instance, the functions performed by High Court in its administrative side are amenable to judicial review in its judicial side’ See R.C. Sood vs. High Court of Rajasthan (1994) Supp. 3 SCC 711; High Court of Judicature, Rajasthan s. Ramesh Chandra Paliwal (1998) 3 SCC 72 @ 85, para. 30. 15. The grant of certified copies of orders of courts is not a sovereign function but is an administrative function. Since this is not a judicial function, it does not partake the character of a ‘sovereign function’. 16. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that an applicant for certified copy of a judicial order, who deposits a fee for obtaining such copy is a “consumer” within the meaning of the Act and the proceeding of such application and the preparation and delivery of the copy in consideration of the copying charges / fee by the concerned staff attached to the court would be a service within the meaning of the Act.” 4. We fully endorse the view taken in the above decisions. Consequently, there cannot be any doubt that the petitioner is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the respondent, State of M.P. is the service provider. It would appear that both the fora below have gravely erred in taking the view which is not in consonance with the settled legal position. Orders passed by the fora below cannot be legally sustained and are accordingly set aside. As a consequence, the complaint is remitted back to the concerned District Forum for deciding the same on merits in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, Gwalior, on 18.04.2011. | 
