1995 (12) TMI 417 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court clarifies statutory duties not covered under Consumer Protection Act

S.P. Goel Versus Collector of Stamps, Delhi

The Supreme Court upheld the National Consumer Redressal Commission's decision, ruling that the appellant was not a 'consumer' under the Consumer ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of Consumer Forums2. Definition and applicability of 'Consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act3. Definition and applicability of 'Service' under the Consumer Protection Act4. Interpretation of 'Deficiency in Service'5. Applicability of the Registration Act and the Stamp Act6. Duties and powers of the Sub-Registrar and Collector of Stamps7. Legal immunity of judicial officers and CollectorsIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of Consumer Forums:The primary issue was whether the District Consumer Forum and the State Commission had the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the appellant's claim under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The National Consumer Redressal Commission dismissed the complaint, ruling that the appellant was not a 'consumer' within the meaning of the Act. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing that the Consumer Protection Act's scope is distinct from the Registration Act and the Stamp Act, which are primarily concerned with state revenue.2. Definition and Applicability of 'Consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act:The term 'consumer' is defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The appellant argued that he should be considered a consumer because he paid registration charges, thereby hiring the services of the Sub-Registrar and the Collector of Stamps. However, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellant did not qualify as a consumer since the registration of documents and the payment of stamp duty are statutory obligations aimed at augmenting state revenue, not commercial transactions where services are availed.3. Definition and Applicability of 'Service' under the Consumer Protection Act:'Service' is defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. The appellant contended that the services rendered by the Sub-Registrar and the Collector of Stamps fall under this definition. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that these services are statutory duties performed to collect state revenue and do not constitute services under the Consumer Protection Act. The Court distinguished these duties from commercial services meant for consumer protection.4. Interpretation of 'Deficiency in Service':'Deficiency' is defined in Section 2(1)(g) of the Act. The appellant claimed there was a deficiency in service due to the delay in registering the document and issuing a certified copy. The Supreme Court found this argument fallacious, noting that the delay was due to the statutory process of determining the nature of the document and the applicable stamp duty, which are quasi-judicial functions not covered by the Consumer Protection Act.5. Applicability of the Registration Act and the Stamp Act:The Registration Act, 1908, and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, regulate the registration of documents and the payment of stamp duty, respectively. The Supreme Court emphasized that these Acts are designed to collect state revenue and do not involve commercial transactions. The Court detailed the procedures under these Acts, including the impounding of documents not duly stamped and the quasi-judicial role of the Sub-Registrar and the Collector of Stamps.6. Duties and Powers of the Sub-Registrar and Collector of Stamps:The Sub-Registrar and Collector of Stamps perform statutory duties, including the impounding of documents not duly stamped and determining the applicable stamp duty. The Supreme Court highlighted that these duties are performed under the superintendence of higher authorities and are aimed at ensuring compliance with the law. The Court noted that these officers act in a quasi-judicial capacity and their actions are subject to review by higher authorities and courts.7. Legal Immunity of Judicial Officers and Collectors:The Supreme Court discussed the legal immunity provided to judicial officers and Collectors under the Judicial Officers (Protection) Act, 1850, and the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. Section 86 of the Registration Act also provides protection to registering officers for actions done in good faith. The Court noted that there was no allegation of malice or bad faith against the Collector in this case, and therefore, the actions of the Collector were protected under these provisions.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the appellant was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, and the actions of the Sub-Registrar and the Collector of Stamps were statutory duties aimed at collecting state revenue. The Court emphasized the distinct purposes of the Consumer Protection Act and the Registration and Stamp Acts, and upheld the legal immunity of the officers involved.