TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a consumer complaint seeking regularisation of an LPG connection was maintainable in the absence of privity of contract and a valid subscription voucher. (ii) Whether an unauthorised LPG connection and possession of cylinders could amount to a deficiency in service or fasten liability on the corporation.
Issue (i): Whether a consumer complaint seeking regularisation of an LPG connection was maintainable in the absence of privity of contract and a valid subscription voucher.
Analysis: The distributor agreement provided that the distributor acted on a principal-to-principal basis and not as an agent of the corporation. The subscription voucher was the document that established an authorised customer relationship with the corporation. In the absence of such a voucher, the connection could not be treated as a validly authorised connection, and a contract could not be foisted on the corporation by relying only on possession or supply of cylinders.
Conclusion: The complaint was not maintainable against the corporation for want of privity of contract and valid authorisation.
Issue (ii): Whether an unauthorised LPG connection and possession of cylinders could amount to a deficiency in service or fasten liability on the corporation.
Analysis: The record showed that the connection had been released unauthorisedly by the distributor, and the corporation had expressly stated that in the absence of a valid subscription voucher it could not regularise the connection. Since deficiency under the consumer law requires a fault or shortcoming in a service undertaken by the person complained against, no deficiency could be attributed to the corporation where the customer's connection itself was unauthorised and the distributor was not acting as its agent.
Conclusion: No deficiency in service was made out against the corporation, and no liability could be fastened on it.
Final Conclusion: The consumer forum orders were set aside and the appeal succeeded, as the claim against the corporation was held to be unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the distributor acts on a principal-to-principal basis and the consumer lacks a valid subscription voucher establishing an authorised connection, no privity of contract or deficiency in service can be inferred against the corporation.
TaxTMI 
