Back
MAHARASTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
P.N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member and S.P. Lale, Member
NAVI MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Appellant
Versus
LAXMAN TABAJI SANAP AND ANR. - Respondents
First Appeal No. 1066 of 2007
Decided on : 30-09-2008
Consumer Complaint - Housing Loan - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(d) - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, including the definition of 'consumer', 'complaint', 'deficiency' and 'service'. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions, emphasizing that an employer-employee relationship does not fall under the purview of consumer protection laws.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, an employee, filed a consumer complaint against his employer and another party alleging deficiency in service in relation to a housing loan.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the consumer complaint was misconceived as the employer-employee relationship does not constitute a consumer-service provider relationship under the Consumer Protection Act.
Issues: Misconceived consumer complaint, Employer-employee relationship not covered under consumer protection laws
Ratio Decidendi: An employer-employee relationship does not fall under the purview of consumer protection laws.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the order of the Forum below was quashed, and the complaint was dismissed. The complainant was directed to pay costs to the appellant and bear his own costs.
ORDER
P.N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member (Oral)- Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Additional District Consumer Fourm, Thane dated 4.7.2007 in Consumer Complaint No. 600/2006, whereby, while allowing the complaint, the Forum below directed O.P.No.l 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.l 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 instalment of Rs. 48,600 was disbursed 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 instalments 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. l 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, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S.D. Rawool, Advocate 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 instalments is always dependent upon the compliance to be made by the concerned employee. Simply because first instalment was given by the Corporation that doesn t mean that all other instalments 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 instalments towards sanctioned housing loan. It is the case of the appellant that respondent had not made complia
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
