National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Laxman Kini, A. vs The Chairman And Managing Director, ... on 25 September, 2000
ORDER
C.L. Chaudhry, J. (Member)
1. This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful complainant against the order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, dismissing the complaint on the ground that the complainant was not a consumer.
2. The appellant filed a complaint before the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Indian Overseas Bank and claiming damages to the tune of Rs.6.50 lakhs as compensation for their deficiency in service and cancellation of an insurance policy without his consent. The case of the complainant is that he has taken a loan from the bank for construction of a flat. He had taken an Insurance policy for protection of his flat. The bank was required to debit his account and pay the Insurance Company the premium as and when such premium fall due. Because of the default of the bank, the insurance cover was lost. The flat was destroyed by arson. The petitioner has been left with no insurance cover.
3. The State Commission, however,found that the complainant was an employee of the bank, He obtained a soft loan from the bank to purchase a flat under the Staff Housing Loan Scheme, which required the employee to get the property insured for the amount of loan, The insurance cover was only for the structure and not the household articles inside the flat. Although the bank had advanced an amount of Rs.1.90 lakhs tot he complainant and his wife to purchase a flat, but by mistake the insurance cover was shown at a figure of Rs. 11.90 lakhs instead of Rs.1.90 lakhs. The mistake was discovered in May, 1994 and the complainant was informed that the policy was cancelled w.e.f 26.5.1994. The complainant had full knowledge of this fact. The alleged incident of arson took place on 16..11.1994. The complainant could not have possibly claimed Rs. 11.90 lakhs as damages under the policy which stood cancelled on 26.5.1994. The Insurance Company also informed the bank that the complainant on his own had renewed the policy for Rs.1.90 lakhs. On these facts, the State Commission came to the findings that the complaint was devoid of merit and that the dispute is really between an employer and an employee.
4. The complaint had full knowledge of cancellation of insurance policy by the bank. He continued the policy on his own for a reduced amount of Rs.1.90 lakhs (the amount of bank loan). He also obtained a sum of Rs. 48,000 from the Insurance Company on the said policy on account of the fire. He cannot have any grievance against the bank. Moreover, the State Commission was right in holding vis-a-vis the bank, the complainant was only an employee and not a consumer. The terms and conditions of an incentive provided by the employer whether in the form of a soft housing loan or some other manner is not a consumer service. A dispute between an employee and an employer relating to terms and conditions of service, salaries or perquisites to its employees will not amount to consumer dispute. We have heard the Appellant and have perused the order of the State Commission. The State Commission has given cogent reasons in arriving at this finding. We see no legal infirmity int he finding recorded by the State Commission which may call for our interference. We see no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed in limine.