IMPORTANT POINT
Where an employee was sanctioned house loan by employer, there could not be said to be a consumer dispute involved in non-disbursement of sanctioned loan.

P.N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member—Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Additional District Consumer Forum, Thane dated 4/7/2007 in Consumer Complaint No.600/2006, whereby, while allowing the complaint, the Forum below directed O.P. No.1 Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation to bear excess payment made to O.P. No. 2 in the form of delay payment charges and interest charged for delayed payment and also directed O.P. No. 1 Corporation to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost to the complainant, the Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the said award.

2. Facts to extent material may be stated as under:

3. Shri Laxman Tabaji Sanap had filed consumer complaint against his employer Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and against Marketing Manager-III, CIDCO, C.B.D. Belapur alleging deficiency in service on their part. According to the complainant, he is working as Traffic Controller with Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation. He applied for housing loan of Rs. 2,43,023/-. It was sanctioned by O.P. No. 1 by letter dated 31/12/2003. By this amount he was to purchase a house in the scheme of CIDCO, O.P. No. 2 known as GHANSOLI GHARAONDA. O.P. No. 1 had sanctioned almost 80% of total housing cost. First installment of Rs. 48,600/- was disburse to O.P. No. 2 by demand draft of Bank of Maharashtra on 3/1/2004. The O.P. No. 1, Corporation assured complainant to pay balance loan amount of Rs.1,94,423/- to O.P. No. 2 CIDCO on or before 31/12/2004. The complainant alleged that Corporation did not release further installments and therefore O.P. No. 2 CIDCO was levying on him interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Hence, he filed consumer complaint and prayed that O.P. No. 2 CIDCO should be directed by an interim order not to cancel or terminate plot or house allotted to him. He also prayed that O.P. No. 1 be directed to pay Rs.2, 12, 723/- inclusive of escalation cost, fine or penalty of O.P. No. 2 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, direct refund of Rs. 48,000/- towards rent and also claimed compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh.

4. O.P. No. 1 filed written statement but it was without any verification. Hence, it was not considered by the Forum below. O.P. No. 2 did not file written statement as it was formal party made to this complaint.

5. Relying on affidavits and documents placed on record, the Forum below held that Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation was guilty of deficiency in service and passed impugned order. As such, Navi Mumbai , Municipal Corporation has filed this appeal.

6. We heard submissions of Mr. K.D. Sukre, Adv. for the appellant and Mr. S.D. Rawool, Adv. for the respondent No.1. We perused the impugned award. It must be stated at this juncture itself that consumer complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was misconceived one. He had filed consumer complaint against his employer since respondent had a grievance that his employer was not releasing sanctioned housing loan to him payable to CIDCO. Employer and employee relationship is not a relationship in which one party is consumer and the other party is service provider. In a welfare state as ours is, some schemes are floated by employer for the welfare and benefit of its employees. Giving housing loan to its employee was the scheme brought into force by appellant Corporation for the welfare of its employees and granting of housing loan, its disbursement in installments is always dependent upon the compliance to be made by the concerned employee. Simply because first installment was given by the Corporation that doesn’t mean that all other installments should have been paid by the Corporation to the respondent or to the CIDCO on behalf of respondent. If some compliance was awaited from the respondent, the Corporation had every right not to release further installments towards sanctioned housing loan. It is the case of the appellant that respondent h