In my considered view, in the facts mentioned by you, your case is covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. You had made payment of a fee for availing some service, and that too from a government enterprise (i.e., a government company).
In this regard, I may point out that in the case of Dr. Chandrakant Vitthal Sawant v. L.R. Pilankar Inspector of Land Records, 2013 SCC OnLine NCDRC 642 : [2013] NCDRC 632 : (2013) 3 CPJ 532 (NC) : (2013) 3 CPR 329 (NC), which was decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) on 23 July 2013, it was held as under:
“So far as the issue regarding the claim of the respondents discharging sovereign function as government servants is concerned, we do not agree with the view taken by the District Forum while rejecting the complaint. No doubt both the respondents are government servants and were carrying out their functions in their official capacity. However, carrying out of measurement of land for payment of prescribed fees as per the application made by the petitioner before the respondents cannot be regarded as a sovereign function. This is part of their administrative functions which they were required to perform for a prescribed fee. This function, therefore, cannot be called a ‘sovereign function’. This view is in line with the judgment of this Commission dated 08.07.2002 in the case of Shri Prabhakar Vyankoba Aadone v. Superintendent Civil Court [R.P. No. 2135 of 2000/1986-2004 Consumer 7211 (NS)] on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner. It was held in this case that while judicial officers may be protected from being arrayed in legal proceedings for their judicial function, they do not enjoy immunity for the administrative functions performed by them or by their staff and as such the grant of certified copies of orders of courts is not a sovereign function but is an administrative function. It was also held that since this is not a judicial function, it does not partake the character of a ‘sovereign function’. It was also held by this Commission in that case 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 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the processing 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. We find that the ratio of this case is squarely applicable to the present case where the petitioner had approached the respondent authority for carrying the measurement of the land in question and for which purpose the applicant had paid the requisite fees to the respondents. In this circumstances, the petitioner is a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act qua the functions discharged by the respondents since these functions of the respondents while dealing with the application of the petitioner for measurement of the land would constitute service.”
Thus, as per this judgment of NCDRC, you are a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act for the facts mentioned by you, since the service was to be given to you on the basis of a payment and it was not a sovereign function of the respondent department / enterprise. This is what is my considered opinion. You can also read a news report in respect of the aforesaid case decided by the NCDRC at this link.
Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.
.
