Haryana

StateCommission

A/240/2022

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FARIDABAD - Complainant(s)

Versus

B.S. VERMA - Opp.Party(s)

B.S. NEGI

27 Jul 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  First Appeal No.240   of 2022

 Date of Institution:09.06.2022

  Date  of  Decision:27.07.2023

 

The Municipal Corporation of Faridabad through its commissioner, B.K.Chowk-NIT, Faridabad.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

B.S.Verma, E-305, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065.

…..Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                   

Present:-    Mr. Pankaj Advocate alongwith Mr.B.S.Negi, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.B.S.Verma respondent in person.

 

                                                 ORDER

S.P.SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

           

          Delay of 24 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay.

2.      Briefly stated, the facts narrated in the complaint are that Municipal Corporation-appellant herein allotted a plot No.27 to the complainant-respondent in 1993, however due to some legal issues seized by the Hon’ble High
Court , it possession was delivered to coplaiannt only in 2010. Thereater complainant got sanctioned the requisite building plan and raised his building and then applied for its completion certificate, but OP-appellant raised some objections. Faced with this situation complainant requested the OP to visit the site but they did not relent. Infact OP authorities were reluctant to do the needful as they wanted complainant to grease their palm for which complainant did not agree. So OPs issued a demand letter of house tax/property tax in respect of his locked premises over plot No.27 in Pragati Vihar. The complainant also filed an RTI application to ascertain regarding his liability to pay house lax, which was duly replied  disclosing that the same is being charged in lieu of OPs providing basic services. Thereafter complainant  again requested the OP to visit the site in question but OP did not oblige him. This is how there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP, hence the complaint.

3.      Upon notice, OP appeared and filed reply disputing his status of being a consumer vis-a-vis OPs who all have bun  providing the basic amenities like water, sewerage, electricity and have developed the road/area also maintain cleaniness etc. and for which compulsory charges are levied from the inhabitant/allottees or plot holders for continuation of  all such services of facilities. However the complainant did not pay the property and fire taxes despite repeated demands for an amount of Rs.29,645/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. due upto 2019-20 for the period from 2013-14 to 2019-20. The complainant was duly liable to pay the building tax and other charges. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Preliminary objections about no locus standi, want of cause of action, maintainability of complaint etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      After hearing counsel for the complainant, the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (In short “District
Commission”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 13.01.2022, the relevant para of relief is reproduced below.

“Opposite parties are directed not to recover the property tax from the complainant and quash the demand notice given by the opposite parties to the complainant. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant towards mental harassment. “

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellants have preferred this appeal.

6.      These argument were advanced by Sh.Pankaj Alonwtih Mr. B.S.Negi Advocate for the appellant and Sh.Amit Handa authorised person of Mr.B.S.Verma respondent who expressed his inability to appear in person on account of his old age. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as original record of the District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

7.      While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by Mr. Pankaj alongwith Mr.B.S.Negi learned counsel for the appellant that complaint has been allowed by the learned District Commission without assigning any reasons on merits; Mr. B.S.Negi Advocate also led this bench through the relevant portion of the impugned judgement which is totally silent about the repealed demands raised by concerned  authorities of OP about the preconditions to be met with by the allottees including complainant seeking no objection from the department settling the issue of common  wall with adjoining allotee and non-payment of property tax before  his asking for the desired completion certificate of his building.  Since the complaint was allowed without giving the reasons on merits, the matter may be relegated/remanded back after setting aside the impugned judgement and the parties may be directed to argue the matter again and the appropriate directions may be issued to the learned District
Commission to decide the complaint afresh after considering the effect of earlier series of litigations in lesser between the parties.

8.      On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the respondent that he is 90 years old  senior citizen and was harassed and suffered since long  at the hands of the appellant about  while refusing to issue the completion certificate  due to his not meeting with their illegal demands and as such the learned District Commission had rightly allowed the complaint and the appeal being devoid of merits also and deserves to be dismissed.   

9.       In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record as well as appellate record, it is true that  virtually no reasons were assigned by the learned District Commission  while arriving at the conclusion as to why the complainant deserved this relief without touching the legality and validity of the demands raised by appellants to be complied with before complainant could be held entitled for the relief prayed for.

10.    With the above observation and discussion and in the considered opinion of this Commission, the impugned order dated 13.01.2022 passed by the learned District Commission, Faridabad is set aside for all intents and purposes.  The matter is remitted back to the District Commission, Faridabad to decide the complaint afresh on merits after giving due reasoning within the period of one month as the complainant is a senior citizen.

11.    Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Faridabad on 24.08.2023 for further proceedings. 

12.    Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

13.    A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

14.    File be consigned to record room.

 

July 27th, 2023                                                   S.P.Sood,                                                                                                 Judicial Member                                                                                       Addl.Bench                 

S.K.(Pvt.Secy.)