w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



District Supply Officer, Tonk & Another v/s Kanoi Oil Mills


Company & Directors' Information:- N K OIL MILLS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U15201GJ1994PTC022669

Company & Directors' Information:- B P OIL MILLS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15142UP1965PLC003232

Company & Directors' Information:- K P L OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15142KL1983PTC003685

Company & Directors' Information:- N K B OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15142KL1999PTC013095

Company & Directors' Information:- KANOI (INDIA) PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U63012WB1950PTC018717

Company & Directors' Information:- K K K OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15142KL2000PTC013621

Company & Directors' Information:- S N OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15142HR1986PTC025702

Company & Directors' Information:- G. B. OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15326HR1985PTC019817

Company & Directors' Information:- R. OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15141DL1992PTC047883

Company & Directors' Information:- J K OIL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15143UP1955PLC002570

Company & Directors' Information:- N N OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15147MH1999PTC117989

Company & Directors' Information:- J & T OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15141KL2006PTC019754

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND R OIL MILLS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15315CH1994PTC014265

    Appeal No. 2365 of 1995

    Decided On, 05 May 2005

    At, Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Jaipur

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR GARG
    By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. SUSHMA TANWAR
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellants: S.C. Mittal, Advocate. For the Respondent: Hemant Sharma, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Sunil Kumar Garg, President

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 23.10.1996 passed by the District Forum, Tonk in Complaint Case No. 85/95, by which the complaint of the respondent was allowed in the manner that appellants were ordered to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 250/- as cost of litigation to the complainant respondent on the ground that the certified copy of the order was issued late by the appellants to the complainant respondent.

2. It may be stated here that the complainant respondent had filed a complaint before the District Forum, Tonk with the allegation that an application was moved by him for obtaining certified copy of an order dated 21.8.1995 passed by appellant No. 1 on the same date i.e., on 21.8.1995 and the same was not supplied to him upto 25.8.1995 and the same was supplied on 26.8.1995 and for that delay compensation was claimed.

3. No reply was filed by the appellants before the District Forum.

4. After hearing the parties the District Forum passed the impugned order. Aggrieved from that judgment this appeal has been filed by the appellants.

5. The main case of the appellants is that since no services were hired by the respondent complainant from the appellants on consideration and, therefore, the respondent complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and thus the impugned order suffers from basic infirmity and illegality and it should be set aside.

6. On the contrary the learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the order under appeal.

7. We have heard both the parties.

There is no dispute on the point that the copy in the present case was supplied not on the same day but after 5 days. There is also no dispute on the point that before applying for the certified copy, the complainant respondent has deposited the necessary fees for obtaining the copy.

8. But in our considered opinion the fee which was paid by the complainant respondent for obtaining a certified copy can never be construed as a consideration as a service to be rendered by the Government through the medium of the appellants. The appellants after all were discharging the statutory functions. Such discharge of statutory functions can never be construed as service as contemplated in Section 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

9. Thus we are of the view that the payment of the fee for the certified copy cannot be construed as consideration inasmuch as the fee paid for getting certified copy is a statutory levy to augment the revenue of the Government.

10. Thus the complainant respondent could not be termed as a consumer qua the appellants. Hence the complaint of the respondent should have been dismissed and thus the impugned order by which complaint was allowed suffers from basic infirmity and illegality and deserves to be quashed.

11. In coming to the above conclusion, this Commission is also in agreement with the views expressed by the Chennai State Commission in the

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

case of G. Selvin Joyal v. Sub-Registrar’s (Housing) Office, reported in II (2003) CPJ 534. 12. For reasons mentioned above, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Forum, Tonk dated 23.10.1996 is set aside and the complaint of the complainant respondent stands rejected. Appeal allowed.
O R