CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR ONGC LTD. . vs. CONSUMER EDUCATION RESEARCH SOCIETY .

REPORTABLE

Versus

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  9258  OF 2019  (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 26660 of 2014) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9259   OF 2019  (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26659 of 2014) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9260  OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26662 of 2014) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9261  OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26655 of 2014) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9262  OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26657 of 2014) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9263   OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26661 of 2014) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9264  OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26663 of 2014) J U D G M E N T Deepak Gupta, J. 1 Leave granted. 2. All   these   appeals   are   being   disposed   of   by   a   common judgment since the issue involved is common in all the cases. 3. At the outset, we may note that Shri Krishnan Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that without prejudice to the rights of the appellants to challenge the impugned orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as well as the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the District Forum, the appellants shall pay the amount as directed in the impugned orders.  This has   been   done   because   the   amounts   involved   are   small,   the appellants had retired a long time back and they should not be forced to go into the second round of litigation.   4. The main issue involved is whether there is relationship of consumer   and   service   provider   existing   between   the   private respondents (claimants) and the appellants.   5. The   undisputed   facts   are   that   all   the   claimants   were employees of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (for short ‘the ONGC’).     A   Self   Contributory,   Post   Retirement   and   Death   in Service   Benefits   Scheme,   1991   (for   short   ‘the   Scheme’)   was 2 introduced   in   the   ONGC   after   obtaining   permission   of   the Government of India and the relevant portion of the letter dated 18.09.1991 granting permission reads as follows:­  “(i) Contribution to the fund to be established from the employee of the ONGC would be in cash, with a token contribution of Rs.100 per annum by ONGC.” The Scheme has also been annexed and the relevant portion of the Scheme reads as follows:­ “1(c)  Membership (i) xxx xxx xxx (ii) The   Scheme   shall   be   optional   to   the   existing executives in regular service of the Commission on the effective date of the Scheme 01 04 1990 However,   t   will   be   compulsory   for   executives joining regular service in the Commission as new entrant   on   or   after   the   effective   date   of   the Scheme option once exercise shall be final and irrevocable xxx    xxx  xxx 2  Contribution 2.1 The contribution to be make by the member­ employee shall be calculate his salary and the rate will be as given hereunder depending on his   age   on   the   effective   of   the   Scheme   for employees on the rolls ONGC as on 01.04.1990 and   on   the   date   Joining   ONGC   for   new entrants.  The rate of contribution fixed at the time   of   entry   will   remain   constant.     The following rates of the contribution are payable in the various age group :

3

5. MANAGING THE SCHEME (a) The Scheme shall be run by a Trust consisting of trustees to be nominated by the Chairman ONGC and   representative   as   may   nominated   on   the board by CWC of ASTO.  The Trust would make investment plan of the fund as per pattern of Rule 67 (2) of Income Tax Rule 1961 and would purchase annuity from LIC for the beneficiaries under the Scheme. 6. Scheme is based on voluntary contribution by the member employees.  No contribution will be made   by   ONGC   towards   this   Scheme   except Rs.100   p.a.   No.   other   financial   liability   on account of this Scheme will devolve on ONGC or the Govt. of India.” It is not necessary to deal with other facts.   The case of the claimants was that due to delay in sending their claims to the LIC,   they   suffered   a   loss.     This   averment   is   denied   by   the appellants   but,   in   our   view,   that   is   not   very   relevant.     The Consumer Fora held that the employees were consumers of the ONGC and therefore passed orders awarding various amounts and costs in favour of the claimants and hence the ONGC is liable to pay the same. 4 6. Shri Venugopal has raised various pleas before us.  The first is that in terms of the definition of consumer in the Consumer Protection   Act,   1986   (for   short   ‘the   Act’),   the   first   essential ingredient is payment of consideration for availing services.  The second   contention   is   that   rendering   of   service   free   of   charge under   a   contract   of   personal   service   is   not   included   in   the definition of service under the Act.  We may refer to Section 2(d) of the Act, which reads as follows:­ “(d) “consumer” means any person who,— (i)  xxx   xxx   xxx   (ii)       hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly   promised,   or   under   any   system   of   deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other   than   the   person   who hires   or   avails   of   the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid   and   partly   promised,   or   under   any   system   of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose;”   We may also refer to Section 2(o) of the Act, which reads as follows:­ “(o) “service” means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking,   financing   insurance,   transport,   processing, 5 supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing   construction,   entertainment, amusement   or   the   purveying   of   news   or   other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service;” Shri Venugopal has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of   vs. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors.     Director, Health 1 Services, Haryana & Ors.  in this regard.  On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment   of   this   Court   in   Regional   Provident   Fund 2 Commissioner  v.  Shiv Kumar Joshi  and  Regional Provident 3 v. .  Fund Commissioner   Bhavani 7. In our opinion, it is not necessary to answer all the issues raised by Shri Venugopal since, in our opinion, there is virtually no privity of contract for providing service between the ONGC and the claimants.  From a perusal of the letter dated 18.09.1991 and the Scheme, relevant portion of which has been quoted above, 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 1  2013(10) SCC 136 2  2000(1) SCC 98 3  (2008) 7 SCC 111 6 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.   We have been informed   at   the   Bar   that   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, 7 it is apparent that the service, if any, is being rendered by the Trust and not by the ONGC.  Therefore, we have no hesitation in coming   to   the   conclusion   that   there   is   no   relationship   of consumer and service provider between the claimants and the ONGC.   We make it clear that we have not gone into the other questions   since,   in   view   of   the   aforesaid   decision,   it   is   not necessary   to   decide   the   other   questions   raised   by   Shri Venugopal.  8. In view of the above discussion, we partly allow the appeals and   set   aside   the   orders   of   the   National   Consumer   Disputes Redressal   Commission   and   the   State   Consumer   Disputes Redressal   Commission   in   so   far   as   it   held   that   there   is   a relationship   of   consumer   and   service   provider   between   the claimants and the ONGC.  We also set aside the costs imposed by the   National   Consumer   Disputes   Redressal   Commission. However,   in   view   of   the   statement   made   by   Shri   Venugopal, recorded in the opening portion of this judgment, we direct the ONGC to pay the amounts payable (other than the costs) under the orders impugned to the claimants within 8 weeks from today. 8 9. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. ..……………………..J. (S. Abdul Nazeer) ..…………………..…J. (Deepak Gupta) New Delhi December 09, 2019 9