The short filling of LPG refills case has reached an important stage in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in short the NCDRC.  The NCDRC, based on the findings of the Professors of IIT, Kharagpur, and the recommendations of the Committee constituted by the Department of consumer Affairs, government of India, to study the short filling of the LPG domestic cylinders, ordered the Ministry of Petroleum, in 2007, to ensure that the Oil Marketing Companies (OMC) modernize all their LPG bottling plants within 4 years and also directed the OMCs to provide weighing scales to the deliverymen, for doing pre-delivery checking of the weight of the refill, in presence of the customers.

              The order of the NCDRC, was passed in August 2007, on a Public Interest Petition filed by the Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela, in 2001.  Though the order concluded the defective service rendered by the Indian Oil Corporation, to lakhs of its unsuspecting customers, who were being given lesser weight of LPG than that stipulated on the LPG refill (14.2 ± 0.15 kg), did not order for any relief, as provided under sec. 14(hb) of the Consumer Protection Act, in short the Act.  Hence the Council moved a petition for Review of its Order, in the NCDRC itself, in 2007.

              After several dates, in the last hearing held on 27th Jan., the maintainability of the Review Petition was challenged by Mr. Mohan Jain, Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Ministry of Petroleum, Government of India.  He cited several Supreme Court judgments and argued that the review sought by the Council is in fact an “Appeal” in disguise and hence should not be allowed.  Mr. Jain argued that NCDRC had already considered the plea of the Council for directing the Opposite Parties to pay 1% of the loss inflicted on the consumers estimated at Rs. 750 crores per year as the same finds a mention in the order.  Though the order might not have dealt with this aspect in details, it cannot form a basis for Review.  As per the Supreme Court, if in a case, though a number of prayers might be made, once the court allows only some of them, it means that the court had rejected the rest.  As such the order of the Commission did not call for any review.

             Mr. B.Vaidyanathan, Chief Mentor, Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela, who appeared on its behalf, argued that the order of the Commission had concluded that the carousel machines set up in the LPG bottling plants were required to be modernized, so that they may deliver the correct weight of LPG to the consumers.  Accordingly it directed the Petroleum Ministry to ensure modernization of the LPG bottling plants, within a period of 4 years.  Since the defect in the LPG filling machines is affecting huge number of consumers, relief as provided under sec. 14(hb) of the Act should have been given, which the impugned order has not provided.  He emphasized that a simple reading of sec.14(hb) makes it abundantly clear that the Commission is not vested with any discretionary power whether to provide the relief or not, once it concludes that a huge number of consumers were indeed affected.

            Sec. 14(hb) says, “to pay such sum as may be determined by it, if it is of the opinion that loss or injury has been suffered by a large number of consumers who are not identifiable conveniently:

           Provided that the minimum amount of sum so payable shall not be less than five per cent of the value of such defective goods sold or services provided, as the case may be to such consumers:

           Provided further that the amount so obtained shall be credited in favour of such person and utilized in such manner as may be prescribed:”

           Mr. Vaidyanathan further referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court, referred by Mr. Jain, M/s Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, 1980 (2) SCC 167:
“But whatever the nature of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except “where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility”. 

            Not providing relief as stated under sec. 14(hb), which is mandatory, in the present facts and findings of the Commission, was a judicial mistake, an error, for which the review was sought, he argued.

           He also pointed out the observations of the Supreme Court, in Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K.Gupta, "The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act thus have to be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose of enactment, as it is a social benefit oriented legislation."  An highly technical approach is not the mandate of law and even an illiterate individual should be able to get appropriate relief if he approaches the consumer fora, he argued.

            The Commission, if it had considered all this and still had not provided relief, it could have stated so in 2007 itself, when the Council filed its petition for Review, Mr. Vaidyanathan argued, as the Presiding Member himself was a part of the bench which heard and issued the order.  Concluding his arguments, he said that the Council and the consumer movement expected an encouraging order from the Commission.

          A two member bench comprising of Justice K.S.Gupta and Justice R.K.Batta heard the arguments and reserved their order.