INDIAN OIL CORPORATION versus CONSUMER PROTECTION COUNCIL, KERALA AND ANR.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 884 · Decided: 07-12-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION 
v. 
CONSUMER PROTECTION COUNCIL, KERALA AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 7, 1993 
B 
[M.N. VENAT.ACHALIAH, CJ. AND S. MOHAN, J.) 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 2(1) (g)-Deficiency of ser-
vice-Unauthorised gas connection-Cylinder and regulator possessed without 
a subscription voucher-Illegal act-No privity of contract between Oil Cor-
C poration and such a consumer-Refusal of regularisation of gas connec-
tion-ffhether deficiency in service-Held, No. 
D 
Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply & Distribution) Order, 
1988-Section 3(2}-Gas Cylinder and regulator possessed without a sub-
scription voucher-Illegal act-Unauthorised gas connection. 
Complainant had taken L.P.G. connection through an authorised 
Agent of Indian Oil Corporation. Cylinder was regularly supplied. When 
the complainant requested for regularisation of his gas connection the Oil 
Corporation refused the same. He filed a complaint before the Consumer 
Redressal Forum claiming regularisation of his gas connection and com-
E pensation. According to the complainant, the refusal amounted to a 
deficiency of service by the Indian Oil Corporation. 
The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Corpora-
tion to regularise the connection and issue a subscription voucher. Appeal 
filed against the order was dismissed. Appellant's plea that there was no 
F privily of contract between the Indian Oil Corporation and the complainant 
and further the compainant was having unauthorised or illegal gas connec-
tion and that could not be regularised, was not accepted. Revision filed 
before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission was also 
dismisse.d. This appeal had been filed against the order of the National 
G Commission. 
The appellant urged that it was not open to the complainant to seek 
remedy u/s 2(g) of the Consumer Protection Act as there was no privity of 
contract between the complainant and the appellant corporation, and that 
since the complainant had failed to furnish a subscription voucher he could 
· H not raise any claim as against the appellant. 
884 
I.O.C. v. CON. COUNCIL [MOHAN, J.) 
885 
In opposition, respondents contended .that the subscription voucher A 
was not the sole evidence to establish the existence of an authorised con-
nection; and that possession of LPG gas Cylinder, pressure regulator and 
regular supply and refill of cylinders would constitute enough evidence to 
establish consumership. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : Production of the subscription voucher is essential to estab-
lish legal connection to bind the appellant Corporation. Therefore, on the 
strength the obtaining possession by means of an unauthorised connection 
B 
it is not open to foist a contract on the Corporation. In so far there is no 
privily of contract between the appellant and the consumer, no 'deficiency' C 
as defined u/s 2(g) of the Consumer Protection Act arises. Therefore, the 
action itself is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. 
(889-A, C, 890-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7330 of 
1993. 
D 
From the Jlidgment and Order dated 17.3.93 of the National Con-
sumer Disputes Redressal Commission in R.P. '.No. 266 of 1992. 
Ms. Asha Jain Madan for the Appellant. 
K.R. Nambiar for th~ Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MOHAN, J. Leave granted. 
This appeal by special leave arise under the following circumstances: 
The first respondent is a voluntary Consumer Organisation in Kerala, 
registered under the Scientific, Literary and Charitable Societies Re:stra-
-.~ 
E 
F 
tion Act. Dr. P. Kamalasanan, Ram Nivas (Gayatri), Sesthamcotta is a 
member and Secretary of the 1st respondent, he had taken L.P.G. Connec- G 
tion through M/s. Karthika Gas Agency who is the authorised distributor 
of the appellant. The said Karthika Gas Agency is the 2nd respondent. 
The 2nd respondent committed several irregularities in giving gas 
connection and in providing refills of L.P.G. cylinders to him. The Gas 
Agency had given more connections than authorised by the appellant, the H 
886 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Indian Oil Corporation. That amounted to deficiency in their service. The 
2nd respondent is the authorised Agent of Indian Oil Corporation. How-
ever, the appellant-Corporation did not take adequate care to ensure that 
the Agency would not cheat the consumers .. Notwithstanding tht.: fact that 
the appellant was aware of the miscon
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.