Date of Filing : 11/12/2020
Date of Judgement : 18/09/2023
Sri Sudip Niyogi, Hon’ble President
Brief Facts
According to complainant, she had booked one apartment No. UTL110903 in Ekadashi, Gold Tower as joint allottee along with her father, Dr. Purandar Bhattacharya in favour of which, she executed one power of attorney. The said apartment is situated at the Upohar Luxury complex at 2052 Chakgaria, Kolkata 700 094 developed by the OP. The said apartment along with car parking was handed over to her on 22/02/2013. The possession letter was also issued on that date. The deed of conveyance was registered on 25/3/2014. As per general terms and conditions, after delivery of physical possession or the deemed date of possession whichever is earlier, the allottee shall be liable to pay the OP/any other appropriate authorities on demand, rates, taxes, duties etc. pertaining to the apartment wholly and the common areas proportionately. According to complainant, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation raised property tax bills on the complainant from the third quarter of 2012-2013 to fourth quarter of 2019-2020 in one go on 19/11/2019 and the same was paid by the complainant on 28/11/2019 and mutation certificate was also issued to her on 13/12/2019. So, the complainant alleged that excess property taxes were recovered from her and accordingly she claimed refund of Rs.20,475/- along with interest, cost of litigation, compensation etc.
This case was contested by OP by filing a written version denying the allegations of the complainant. They also claimed, the complaint being not at all maintainable before this commission. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Both parties adduced their evidence. OP also submitted brief notes of argument.
Points for consideration are :-
- Whether the instant complaint is maintainable?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?
FINDINGS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion.
On behalf of the OP, it was argued that the instant case is not at all maintainable as the complaint is barred by law of limitation. The argument is that the deed of conveyance was executed on 27/2/2014 and the complaint was filed before this commission after the lapse of six years without any application for condonation of delay. Secondly, the complaint is also hit by the pecuniary limits of the District Commission as the value of the flat purchased by the complainant was Rs.2,46,26,233/- which is beyond the pecuniary limits of this commission. This apart, the OP claimed the nature of the prayer as made in the complaint is also beyond the jurisdiction of this commission as the matter relates to KMC tax which can’t be adjudicated under the C.P. Act and the said claim is not relating to hiring of service from the OP on payment of consideration. So far as the municipal taxes are concerned, the OP acted only as a mediator of the complainant and the amount paid to the KMC cannot be refunded by the OP.
Admittedly, the deed of conveyance in respect of the flat of the complainant was registered on 25/3/2014 though no copy of the said document was submitted by the complainant. According to complainant, the mutation of her flat was done on 13/12/2019 after the municipal taxes were paid on 28/11/2019. In the present complaint, complainant expressed her grievances with regard to the amount of municipal taxes recovered from her in respect of her flat etc. which is in excess of the amount that she is liable to pay and that is why she filed the case against the OP for realization of the excess amount of taxes paid by her. So, in this regard, as the amount of taxes paid in the year 2019 while the instant case being filed in the year 2020, the instant case in our opinion cannot be said to be barred by limitation.
The complainant never stated the amount of consideration paid by her for her flat and car parking while the OP claimed the consideration paid was Rs.2,46,26,233/-. Complainant did not deny the same. Moreover, the payment schedule and other papers produced on behalf of the complainant also go to substantiate the said claim of the value of the flat being Rs.2,46,26,233/- where the pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission is Rs.50,00,000/-. The said value of the flat is essentially required to be considered in this case as the entire case of the complainant originates from her purchase of the said flat. Though the amount of refund claimed is Rs.20,475/-, but the actual value of the flat exceeds the jurisdiction of this commission. Therefore, we think the instant complaint is not at all maintainable before this commission and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED
The instant case stands dismissed on contest against the OP. No order as to cost.
Dictated and corrected by me
President
