BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Wednesday the 26th day of November, 2008
C.C.No. 39/08
Between:
Sikhamani (Alias) Cheruku Alfred Devasikhamani, S/o.Late Ch.Samuel,
78/25, B1, Krishna Nagar, Kurnool. … Complainant
Versus
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation,
Kurnool. … Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.P.Siva Sudharshan, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.D.Yella Reddy, Advocate, for the opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following
ORDER
(As Per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President )
C.C.No.39/08
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/S 11 and 12 of C.P.Act seeking direction on the opposite party to pay him Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as cost of this case besides to a declaration as to no due of tax from the complainant and direction to withdraw demand tax notice issued to the complainant alleging that he is an ex- military service man and the owner of house No.78-27B , Krishna Nagar of Kurnool which is originally within the limits of Grampanchayat , Kallur subsequently merged with Kurnool Municipal Corporation and as ex-military service man entitled to exemption of property tax on said house vide G.O.Ms.No.83/M.A dated 15-03-1997 and when it was brought to the notice of the opposite party any insistence was made to the complainant for tax on said house and inspite of that fact the complainant was caused a house tax demand notice on 9-11-2006 for Rs.25,168/- alleging them as arrears and penalty without specifying to which year they pertain to and the approach of the complainant to the opposite party there on bore any fruit and the legal notice dated 16-08-2007 of the complainant was also not responded by the opposite party and the said conduct of the opposite party causing demand notice for house tax even though exempted from taxation and not responding to the approaches of the complainant for tax exemption , is not only amounting to deficiency of service but also ensuing mental agony .
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party has caused its appearance through its counsel and contested the case filling written version denying any deficiency and there by any liability to the complainants claim.
3. The written version of the opposite party besides questioning the justness and maintainability of the complainants case and requiring the strict proof of complaint averments allege that at any time house tax was exempted to the complainant and at the time of merger of Kallur Grampanchayat with kurnool Municipal corporation the house tax for the complainant house was Rs.1292.80 and after the merger the said house tax was revised by the opposite party , after due process of Law , to Rs.2054 /- per half year and demand notice was issued accordingly to the complainant and the complainant never objected for the same and made any representation for exemption and the so said house was shown in tax demand register maintained from the time of merger i.e., since 2002 . It further alleges that the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs sought as the house of the complainant does not come under the scope of Sec. 202 , Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and the complainant is not in possession of said house having sold it to others and prior to it leased out several years to others and there by any locus standee to the complainant to file this case . As said sale was not intimated the demand notices were being issued in the name of the complainant himself . It questions the jurisdiction of this forum to entertain the grievances of the complainant as to tax demanded , under Sec.282 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, is to be questioned in appeal before the Court of District Judge and the complainant being not entitled to any reliefs sought as to tax exemption seeks the dismissal of the complaint for want of proper cause of action and any liability of the opposite party for complainants claim.
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A7 and the sworn affidavit of the complainant , the opposite party side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1 besides to its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its contentions.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency of the opposite party and there by any liability to the complainants claim.
6. The Ex.A3 is the Xerox letter dated 10-02-2003. It was said to have been addressed by the complainant to the opposite party seeking exemption of house tax vide G.O.Ms.No.83/ M. A. dated 15-03-1997 as he is an Ex-service man . The said Ex.A3 appears to have been acknowledged by the opposite party under Ex.A4 acknowledgement .
7. The complainant contends that there on to the Ex.A3 he was not insisted of payment of tax to his house . The complainant has not placed any order of the opposite party in pursuance to said Ex.A3 exempting house tax to the complainant as sought . But on the other hand the opposite parties written version and sworn affidavit denies of any exemption of tax to the complainants house and in support of it places the extract of tax demand register in Ex.B1 envisaging demand for house tax to the house No.78-27 B of complainant since 2002-2003 continuously till 2007 -2008 and the Ex.A1 demand notice also shows the demand of Rs.2,054/- towards complainants house tax for the second half year of 2006-2007 and at the same rate for the last seven half years and a penalty of Rs.6 ,847/- totaling the demand to Rs.23,379/- and the payability of the said amount with further penalties there after till 31-3-2007 .
8. In the absence of any cogent material as to alleged exemption of the house tax by the opposite party to the complainants house earlier to Ex.A1 demand and in the light of the Ex.B1 entries , there appears any bonafidees in the contentions of the complainant that he was never insisted for tax payment earlier to Ex.A1.
9. The Ex.A2 avers that on 28-02-2007 he ( complainant ) met the concern clerk in bill collection office and verified the demand notice issuing book and found his name against house No.78-27 B as ex-service man house . But there appears any bonafidee truth in said contention as there is any such entry in ExB1 extract register of tax demand or any supporting affidavit of the concerned having know of the said fact other than himself has been filed by the complainant . Further if the complainant really enjoyed the exemption he is claiming under said G.O. there appears any necessity to pay him tax on 28-2-2003 vide receipt No.144318 dated 28-2-2003 as alleged in Ex.A2 averments . From all these circumstances it appears that the complainant was ever granted any exemption of house tax and the Ex.A1 demand notice was a surprise to him .
10. While such is so the opposite party contends that the complainant is having any locus standie to file this case seeking declaration of exemption of house tax to the house No.78-27 B of Krishna Nagar, as he has already sold away said house to the others and having any possession there on since long time as the leased out it for several years even prior to said sale . There appears any denial to it in the sworn affidavit of the complainant but on the other hand in reply to the interrogatory No.9 of the opposite party there appears an admission from the complainant as to his sale of said house on 5-7-2007.From the said Ex.A2 averments, the reply of the complainant as to sale of said house on 5-7-2007 appears to be a total false as he takes mention of the sale of house to others by the date of Ex.A2 letter dated 2-3-2007 addressed to the opposite party and there by the complainant appears to be having any regard to the truth .
11. The Ex.A6 is the Xerox copy of G.O.Ms.No.83. M.A. and Urban Development (TC) Department dated 15-3-1997 on which the complainant seeks declaration of tax exemption to his house bearing No.78-27 B of Krishna Nagar, located in the limits of Kurnool Municipal Corporation . The reading of Cl. 2 ( I ) (i) of said G.O. provides the tax exemption to the house of ex-service man if it is in self occupation and by the word “ should” employed the said self occupation of the house by the ex-service man to seek tax exemption appears to be a mandatory one . The complainant either from the Ex.A2 or from the reply to the interrogatory No.9 of the opposite party being not in a possession of the house for which he seeking exemption of tax on the date of filling of this case nor on the date of Ex.A7 legal notice dated 16-8-2007 which was said to have been not responded by the opposite party. Therefore the case of the complainant suffers for want of his locus standie for filling this case and there by suffers for want of proper cause of action at the liability of the opposite parties even if he wants to seek declaration of the null and voidness of the Ex.A1 bill as the said relief could be given only by a competent civil Court and not by the Forum .
12. In the light of the discussed circumstances and facts the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the complainant reported in IV CPJ 2006 (20) (NC) , 2000 CCJ 467 (NC) and II 2005 CPJ 507 ( Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) is having any relevant application to the facts and circumstances of this case .
13. Consequently, there being any merit and force in the cause of action and the case of the complainant at any liability of the opposite party for complainants claim the case of the complainant is dismissed with cost.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 26th day of November, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Xerox copy of the demand notice property tax pertaining to complainant per second half year 2006-2007.
Ex.A2. Office copy of letter dated 02-03-2007 of complainant addressed to Commissioner Municipal Corporation (OP).
Ex.A3. Office copy of letter dated 10-02-2003 of complainant addressed to opposite party .
Ex.A4. Acknowledgement dated 13-02-2003.
Ex.A5. Xerox copy of Ex-service identity card of complainant.
Ex.A6. Xerox copy of G.Ms.No.83
Ex.A7. Office copy of legal notice dated 16-08-2007.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Extract of property tax demand registered 2002-2003 to
2007-2008 for H.No.78-27-B.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
