Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 369.
Instituted on : 18.07.2016.
Decided on : 29.10.2018.
Pintu son of late Sh. Maman Singh resident of 1432 Ward No.1. Sanjay colony, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Bharti Airtel Ltd., Registered office at H-5/12 Qutab Ambience, Mehrauli Road, New Delhi through its Chief Executive Officer.
- Bharti Airtel Ltd. Plot No.21, IT Park, Chandigarh through its Manager/Incharge.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER
Present: Sh.R.S.Saini, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite party No.1 already exparte.
Sh.Satyawan Kundu Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that a leave and license agreement was executed between Sh. Maman Singh father of complainant now deceased as licensor and the opposite parties as license on 14.02.2017 for a period of 20 years commencing from 01.04.2007. This agreement was for the purpose of Tower/establishing, installing, maintaining and working telepgraph equipment/Cell Site for the business of the licensee in the premises of father of complainant. that in consideration of the licensor permitting the licensee to use the licensed premises, licensee had agreed to pay a license fee of Rs.4600/- per month and it was agreed that there will be 10% increased in the license fee at the expiry of every 3 years. That the father of complainant had died on 24.10.2012 and therefore, the opposite parties are liable to pay license fee to the complainant as the complainant is son and legal heir of his deceased father. That from the month of January 2015 the opposite parties are not paying license fee to the complainant and on the other hand, Municipal Corporation, Rohtak sent the commercial property tax amounting to Rs.18542/- regarding the tower of opposite parties. That the opposite party had refused to pay any heed to the requests of the complainant. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay the license fee as per agreement from the month of January 2015 to upto date alongwith interest and compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses etc. as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to OP No.1 through registered post not received back in any form and OP No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 31.08.2016 of this Forum. Opposite partyNo.2 filed its written reply submitting therein that the opposite party is not liable to pay the rent amount to the complainant. The agreement was entered into between Mr. Maman Singh and the opposite party. The complainant is not the sole legal heir of the said properly. That the tower was dismantled and the rent was paid in January 2015. Due to issues with the landlord, Mr. Ravinder, the brother of the complainant, they were unable to remove the site. After a settlement, they paid the settlement amount and received NOC from Mr. Ravinder. That the disputes are to be referred to arbitrator and this Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and the evidence of complainant was closed by the order dated 01.10.2018 of this Forum. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that through this complainant the complainant has demanded licence fee as per agreement and also demanded the commercial property tax amounting to Rs.18542/- from the respondents. At the time of arguments the complainant has placed on record some documents i.e. property tax bill as Annesure-A to Annexure D and another copy of Sale deed as ‘Annexure-E’ to prove that the respondent officials has not dismantled the tower and its accessories from the spot upto 30.01.2017. Through these documents the complainant wants to prove that the commercial property tax was demanded by the department Municipal Corporation from the period 2012 to 2017. The total tax calculation comes to Rs.3375 x 5 i.e. Rs.16875/-. The perusal of Annexur-E at page no.4 a pohotocopy of photo was placed on record with Registry. The perusal of this photo shows that the property was sold by Sunny s/o Maman s/o Risal Singh on dated 30.01.2017. In the photographs the accessories of the Tower can be seen.
6. As per respondents they had removed all the structure of tower and dismantle all the accessories from the spot and they had already paid rent upto January 2015 to Mr. Ravinder i.e. brother of complainant and nothing is outstanding against them. In favour of their contention, they have placed on record a photocopy of a document i.e Ex.R1. Ex.R1 was signed by one witness Surender, R.Saini and authorized signatory of Samson Software Technologies. The respondent has failed to provide any affidavit or evidence to prove that the matter had already been settled between Ravinder and the respondents officials with the consent of other LRs of the deceased Maman.
7. The present complaint was filed by Pintu and regarding the other LRs of Maman Singh, he is silent. The Pintu has not disclosed the name of other LRs of deceased Maman Singh in the present complainant. As per the respondent there are three sons of deceased and regarding other LRs the respondent and complainant are silent. Through this complaint, the complainant is demanding licence fee and municipal tax. In our opinion regarding licence fee/rent all the legal heirs of the deceased Maman Singh should file a suit in appropriate Court of law collectively, if so desired.
8. In view of the above mentioned observations, it is held that there is partly deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and they are liable to pay compensation and Municipal tax to the complainant as some accessories and board etc. were lying on the spot and the site was not properly used by the complainant. Accordingly the complaint is partly allowed and we hereby direct the opposite parties to pay Rs Rs.16875/-(Rupees Sixteen thousand eight hundred seventy five only) on account of Municipal Tax and Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision, failing which OPs shall be liable to pay interest @9% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision till its realisation.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
8. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
29.10.2018.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
………………………………..
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
