Summary
The Court held that ONGC was not the service provider to employees claiming losses under a contributory post-retirement scheme administered by a separate trust. It set aside the contrary consumer-forum findings and the National Commission’s costs. Nevertheless, ONGC was directed to honour its counsel’s undertaking to pay the substantive amounts, given the small sums and the retirees’ long wait. Other questions concerning consumer status and consideration were left undecided.
Issues
- Whether a consumer–service-provider relationship existed between ONGC and the scheme claimants.
- What effect should be given to ONGC’s undertaking to pay despite its legal challenge.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(1)(d)(ii) and (o), Consumer Protection Act, 1986The claim failed against ONGC because any relevant service was rendered by the administering trust, without deciding the other disputed elements of consumer status. (¶¶ 6, 7)
Held
- The employees contributed to the scheme while ONGC made only a token annual contribution. Administration and investment were entrusted to a separate trust, which rendered any relevant service. A consumer–service-provider relationship with ONGC was therefore absent. (¶¶ 5, 7)
- The Court did not decide whether employees’ contributions constituted consideration for trust services or the other broader objections to consumer jurisdiction. Those questions were unnecessary to the conclusion about ONGC. (¶ 7)
- Despite success on the legal issue, ONGC remained bound by counsel’s statement that it would pay the amounts awarded so the retired claimants would not face another round of litigation. National Commission costs were excluded. (¶¶ 3, 8)
Result
Appeals partly allowed. Findings of a consumer–service-provider relationship with ONGC and the National Commission’s costs were set aside. ONGC was nevertheless directed, in accordance with its undertaking, to pay the amounts under the impugned orders other than costs within eight weeks. Pending applications disposed of.