Pranav B Prem

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pathanamthitta, comprising Sri. George Baby (President) and Sri. Nishad Thankappan (Member), held the dealer of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for denying a woman consumer access to the toilet facility at a fuel station. The Commission observed that the right to basic amenities like a toilet at a petrol pump is a statutory entitlement and cannot be arbitrarily denied, particularly in situations of urgency.

Background

On 08.05.2024, the complainant, Smt. Jayakumary C.L., a school teacher, was travelling from Kasargod to her hometown Pathanamthitta. During her journey, she stopped at the Thenankalil Petroleum Fuel Pump, operated by the first opposite party, to refuel her vehicle. After refueling, she urgently needed to use the toilet facility provided at the petrol pump. However, upon reaching the restroom, she found the toilet door locked. When she approached the staff for assistance, she was informed that the toilet was locked by the manager and was not accessible to customers, allegedly because it was out of order due to an overflowing septic tank.

Also Read: Possession Offered Twice, Delay Due to Road Shifting and Plan Approval—HUDA Not Liable, Rules NCDRC

Despite her repeated pleas and the urgency of her situation, the staff remained uncooperative. She attempted to contact the dealer and the manager through the phone numbers displayed at the premises, but neither responded to her calls. As the situation became increasingly distressing and no alternate fuel station was accessible due to road maintenance work, the complainant dialed emergency number 112 to seek police assistance. Even in the presence of police officers, the staff refused to unlock the toilet, compelling the police to break open the door.

Contrary to the staff’s claim, the toilet was found to be in a good and usable condition. Following the police intervention, the complainant registered a General Diary entry at the Payyoli police station. Deeply disturbed by the experience and the disrespect shown towards her basic human need, she filed a complaint before the Commission under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Defence by Opposite Parties

The dealer (first opposite party) admitted that the incident occurred but maintained that the toilet had been closed for maintenance due to an overflowing septic tank. It was claimed that the staff offered to arrange alternative toilet access at a nearby property but were met with hostility from the complainant’s side. The dealer insisted that the toilet was reopened only later when the drainage issue had resolved, and that the staff had acted reasonably given the situation.

Opposite parties 2 to 4—officials and the Chairman of Indian Oil Corporation—contended that there was no privity of contract between them and the complainant and that services such as toilet access were not provided in exchange for any monetary consideration. They argued that the complaint did not fall within the definition of a “consumer complaint” under Section 2(6) of the Act. Nonetheless, they stated that advisories were later issued to all dealers to ensure the provision of basic amenities to customers.

Observations by the Commission

The Commission noted that the complainant had produced evidence including the fuel purchase bill (Ext. A1), outgoing call records to the manager and dealer (Ext. A2 & A3), and photographs of the notice board displaying consumer rights including the right to use toilet facilities (Ext. A4). The call log to emergency services and police intervention were also substantiated through documentary and photographic evidence (Ext. A5–A8).

The Commission emphasized that toilet facilities at petrol pumps are among the mandatory basic services required to be provided free of cost. It held: “A person’s basic requirement is to go to toilet or use the rest room which the petrol pump owner cannot refuse. Maintaining a clean and working toilet in petrol pump is a statutory requirement.”

Also Read: NCLT Bengaluru: Insufficiently Stamped Agreements Not a Bar to Section 7 IBC Application

The Commission found that the dealer failed to provide this basic facility even when police assistance was called for, and that the refusal was not justified. The claim regarding septic tank overflow was unsupported by any documentary or technical evidence. The staff’s conduct was described as “adamant” and “lacking in empathy,” particularly towards a woman traveler in urgent need. The Commission noted that the complainant suffered inconvenience, mental agony, loss of time, and humiliation, all due to a basic amenity being wrongfully denied.

Verdict

The Commission concluded that the actions of the first opposite party constituted grave deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. While acknowledging that the Indian Oil Corporation itself had not directly denied service, the Commission found the dealer liable for the misconduct and violation of consumer rights. The complaint was allowed. The Commission directed the first opposite party (dealer) to pay:

• ₹1,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant, with interest at 10% per annum from the date of filing the complaint until realization.

• ₹15,000/- as cost, payable within 30 days of the order, failing which it shall carry interest at 9% per annum until realization.

Appearance

For Opposite Party -1: Adv. G. Praveen Kumar

For Opposite Parties -2,3,4:  Adv. R. Chandran

Cause Title:  Jayakumary C L V. Fathima Hanna & 3 Ors.

Case No: CC 154/2024

Coram: Sri. George Baby [President], Sri. Nishad Thankappan [Member]

[Read/Download order]