CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR ONGC LTD. & ORS. versus CONSUMER EDUCATION RESEARCH SOCIETY & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 14 S.C.R. 774 · Decided: 09-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
774
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR
ONGC LTD. & ORS.
v.
CONSUMER EDUCATION RESEARCH SOCIETY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9257 of  2019)
DECEMBER 09, 2019
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Consumer-Service provider
relationship – Whether there is relationship of consumer and
service provider existing between the private respondents
(claimants) and the appellants – All the claimants were employees
of the ONGC – A Self Contributory, Post Retirement and Death in
Service Benefits Scheme, 1991 was introduced in the ONGC after
obtaining permission of the Government of India on 18.09.1991
– Case of the claimants was that due to delay in sending their
claims to the LIC, they suffered a loss – Consumer Fora held that
the employees were consumers of the ONGC and held in favour
of the claimants – Held: There was no privity of contract for
providing service between the ONGC and the claimants – Letter
dated 18.09.1991 and the Scheme showed that contributors to the
Scheme were the employees of ONGC – The employer was only
making a token contribution of Rs.100 per annum, the Scheme was
also voluntary and optional for the employees who were in service
– The Scheme envisaged that every employee shall contribute to
the fund at rates specified therein – The Scheme was managed and
run by a Trust and not by the ONGC – The service, if any, was
being rendered by the Trust and not by the ONGC – Thus, there
was no relationship of consumer and service provider between the
claimants and the ONGC – However, in view of the submission for
the appellant that without prejudice to their rights to challenge the
impugned orders of consumer forums, the appellants shall pay the
amount as directed in the impugned orders, ONGC is directed to
pay the amounts under the order impugned to the claimants.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. There is virtually no privity of contract for
providing service between the ONGC and the claimants.  From
   [2019] 14 S.C.R. 774
774
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
775
a perusal of the letter dated 18.09.1991 and the Scheme, it is
apparent that contributors to the Scheme were the employees
of ONGC. Whereas the employer was only making a token
contribution of Rs.100 per annum, the Scheme was also voluntary
and optional for the employees who were in service from the
effective date i.e. 01.04.1990. It is not disputed that all the
claimants were in service before the effective date. The Scheme
envisages that every employee shall contribute to the fund at
rates specified therein. The younger the employee, the
percentage deducted from his salary is less and this rises
progressively as the age increases. It has obviously been done
to ensure that the contribution of the employee is equal i.e. those
who have less years of remaining service will contribute at a
higher rate and those who have more years of remaining service
will contribute at a lower rate. The most important aspect is that
the Scheme is managed and run by a Trust and not by the ONGC.
The trustees of the Trust are nominated by the Chairman of the
ONGC and representatives may be nominated to the Board of
Trustees by the Central Working Committee (CWC) of
Association of Scientific and Technical Officers. 7 trustees are
nominated by the Chairman of the ONGC and 6 by the CWC.
Be that as it may, it is the Trust which manages the fund.
Therefore, without going into the question as to whether any
amount is being paid by the employees for contribution to the
services rendered by the Trust, it is apparent that the service,
if any, is being rendered by the Trust and not by the ONGC.
Therefore, there is no relationship of consumer and service
provider between the claimants and the ONGC. [Para 7] [779-
F-G; 780-A-E]
Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors. vs. Director, Health
Services, Haryana & Ors. (2013) 10 SCC 136 : [2013]
8  SCR 77 ; Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
v. Shiv Kumar Joshi (2000) 1 SCC 98 : [1999] 5 Suppl.
SCR 294 ; Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v.
Bhavani (2008) 7 SCC 111 – referred to.
2. The orders of the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission and the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission are set aside in so far as it held that
CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR ONGC LTD. v.
CONSUMER EDUCATION RESEARCH SOCIETY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
776
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
there is a relationship of consumer and service provider between
the claimants and the ONGC.  Howeve

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.