BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE.

PRESENT:   THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L.,                    PRESIDENT    

                                       TMT. G. MALARVIZHI, B.E.                                   MEMBER – I

                                      THIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI,B.SC.        MEMBER – II

CC.37 / 2007

MONDAY THE 27^TH   DAY OF JUNE  2011.                               

A.T. Kuppuswamy Chettiar,

S/o Thangavel Chettiar,

No. 55/29, Flower Bazaar Street,

Amburpet,

Vaniyambadi,

Vellore District.                                                                                                 ..Complainant.

       - Vs –

The Commissioner,

Vaniyambadi Municipality,

New Town,

Vaniyambadi.                                                                         … Opposite party.

. . . .

              This petition coming on for final hearing before us on  18.5.2011, in the presence of Thiru. S. Prakash, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru. A.G. Srinivasan, Advocate for the opposite party,  and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:

O R D E R

            Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District.

1.         The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows:   

            The complainant and his two brothers are the owner of the Door No.1476, P.J. Nehru Street, Vaniyambadi.  The complainant is the eldest brother.  The complainant has been prompt in paying the taxes.  The opposite party has issued a charge sheet No.151 S.R. 390/2005 dt. 21.5.05 and has filed the Criminal Case against the complainant and it was posted on 9.6.05 and the case was adjourned to 3.8.05 in the mean time the complainant offered to pay the amount as claimed in the charge sheet.  But the opposite party stated that the Computer shows arrears of tax to the tune of Rs.54,036/- upto 2004-2005 (ii) and current tax of Rs.57,974/-.   The complainant has paid tax as per the notice of the opposite party dated 2.6.99 for 1994-95 and for 1997-98 and the tax receipts were produced.  The complainant was directed to produce the receipt and the opposite party offered to adjust the same for the subsequent taxes.  Therefore with a view to avoid continuance of prosecution the complainant has paid Rs.57,974/- under receipt No.5001619 and 5001620 dt. 22.7.05.  The property was partitioned on 10.9.04 between the complainant and his brothers A.T. Palani and A.T. Kumar and the partition deed and release deeds were executed and registered.  Since the other shares did not pay their proportionate tax.  The complainant has paid a tax on 22.7.05.  The complainant and his brother A.T. Palani have sold their respective shares by sale deed dt. 25.7.05 and 27.7.05.  Since the complainant has paid excess tax the complainant has issued lawyers notice 25.8.05 for which the opposite party did not choose to reply.  Thereupon the complainant has issued notice dt. 11.1.06 stating as follows:

That the complainant has paid an excess of Rs.10,418/- to avoid prosecution.   The opposite party has filed the charge sheet the amount due to the tune of Rs.31,529/- for the periods 199-2000 to 2003-04 (i).  The complainant with a view to avoid prosecution approached the opposite party and the Subordinates of the opposite party has issued a computed sheet stating the following dues.

The complainant was compelled to pay Rs.54,036/- and 3,938/- as per the Computer Sheet and the complainant has paid Rs.57,974/- on 22.7.05 under receipt No.5001619.  As per the computer sheet the opposite party has collected an excess amount of Rs.10,418/-.   On account of the conduct of the opposite party.   Thus the opposite party is guilty of deficiency of service.  The complainant and his brother has sold their respective shares by sale deed dated and the same was also intimated to the opposite party.  Therefore the opposite party is not entitled to claim any amount.  While so the opposite party has issued notice dt. 5.1.07 claiming tax arrears of Rs.11,839/-.  Therefore the conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service.    The complainant pray this Forum for directing the opposite party to repay the excess amount paid by the complainant a sum of Rs.10,418/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and to pay a sum of  Rs.15,000/- as damages for mental agony and hardship with cost. 

2.         The averments in the counter filed by the opposite party is as follows:

             The opposite party does not admit any of the allegations stated in the compliant to be true except those are herein after specifically admitted and puts the complainant to strict proof of the rest of the allegations.  The allegations stated that the complainant and his two brothers are the owners of the Door No.1476, P.J. Nehru Street, Vaniyambadi and the complainant is the elder brother and the complainant is prompt in paying the tax and the opposite party issued a charged sheet No.151 S.R. 390 / 2005 dt. 21.5.05 and has filed a criminal case and the complainant offered to pay the amount as claimed in the charge sheet and the opposite party claimed Rs.57,974/- till 2005 2^nd half and the complainant has paid the same and the opposite party offered to adjust the excess amount towards subsequent period are all denied and the complainant is put to strict proof of the above said allegations.  The opposite party is no way concerned with the partition or release of properties with his brothers and since the other shares did not pay the tax he has paid the tax.  Likewise the allegations stated that the complainant and his brother A.T. Palani sold their respective shares in the property is also no way concerned with the opposite party.  Likewise the table relating to payment of tax given in para -5 of the complaint is also not correct.     The opposite party has not made any double claim in computer statement as alleged.  Admittedly the complainant has paid the said sum of Rs.57,974/- only on 22.7.05.  If at all the amount would have been paid already he could have produced the receipt and get the same deducted.  The complainant has paid the amount only on his own accord.  The allegations stated that the complainant has paid Rs.10,418/- to avoid  prosecution is not correct.   The allegations stated that the complainant was compelled to pay the said amount is not correct.  The amount was paid by the complainant voluntarily and if he has paid any amount in excess the same will be adjusted in the future taxes due on confirmation of the same.  The complainant has not produced any receipt for the amount paid earlier and the allegations stated that the opposite party claimed the amount of tax in excess is false.  Even as per the complainant’s own allegations the charge sheet amount is only Rs.31,529/- and he has paid the excess amount to avoid future prosecution.  The allegations stated that since the complainant has sold the property they are not liable to pay the tax is not correct.   The assessment still stands in the name of the complainant and hence they are liable to pay the tax.  Since nobody applied for name transfer as per the procedure only the complaint has to pay the tax.  On a mere intimation, the opposite party cannot effect the name transfer of assessment.  The claim for compensation is not bonafide.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  At no time the opposite party demanded any excess of tax or has forced the complainant to pay the same.  The entire action of the complainant is voluntary and the allegations stated in para-8 is baseless.   The opposite party is a statutory body and the opposite party is only doing their statutory obligations and there is no deficiency of service.  The complaint may be dismissed as against the opposite party. 

3.         Now the points for consideration are:

a)  Whether there is any deficiency in service, on 

                 the part of the opposite parties?.

            b)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the

                reliefs asked for?.

4.         Ex.A1 to ExA10 were marked on the side of the complainant and no documents were marked on the side of the opposite party.  Proof affidavit of the complainant and Proof affidavit of the opposite party have been filed.  No oral evidence let in by either side. 

5.         POINT NO. (a): -                   

            The complainant contended that the opposite party has filed the charge sheet for the amount due to the tune of Rs.31,529/- for the period of 1994-1995 and 2000 to 2003-04.   Therefore, with a view to avoid prosecution, the complainant has pad Rs.57974/- under receipt Ex.A6 & Ex.A7 No.5001619, dt. 22.7.05.  As per  the computer sheet the opposite party has collected an excess amount of Rs.10,418/-.   Therefore the conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service.

6.         The opposite party contended that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.57974/- only on 22.7.05 and if he has paid any amount in excess the same will be adjusted in the future taxes due on confirmation of the same,  but the complainant has not produced any receipt for the amount paid earlier.   The allegations stated that the opposite party claimed the amount of tax in excess is false.  It is further contended that the assessment still stands in the name of the complainant, since nobody applied for name transfer, as per the procedure only the complaint has to pay the tax.   On a mere intimation, the opposite party cannot effect the name transfer of assessment.    Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 

7.         From the perusal of tax receipts Ex.A1, dt. 16.3.95, Ex.A2, dt. 27.5.98, Ex.A3, dt.2.11.00 issued by the opposite party, it is seen that the complainant has paid a sum of RS.3582/- for 1994-1995 Part I & II, on 16.3.95 a sum of Rs.1791/- paid on 27.5.98 for the period 1997-1998 Part II and  a sum of Rs.4478/- paid on 2.11.00 for the period 1998-1999.  From the perusal of tax receipts Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 issued by the opposite party, it is seen that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.19,690/- arrear in current property tax for the period 2003-2004 Part-I and II, 2004-2005 Part I and Part II, 2005-2006 Part-I, on 22.7.05 and on the same day the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.38,284/- arrear of property tax for the period 1994-1995  Part-II, 1997-1998 Part-II, 1998-1999 Part-II, 1999-2000 Part-II, 2000-2001 Part-II, 2001-2002 Part-II, 2002-2003 Part I and II.   According to the complainant with view  to avoid  of prosecution  as per computer sheet Ex.A5, the complainant has paid  Rs.57,974/- under receipt Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 on 22.7.05.   As per computer sheet the opposite party has collected an excess amount of  Rs.10418/-.  From the perusal of computer sheet demand notice Ex.A5 it is mentioned as follows: -

jhA;fs; ne;efuhl;rpf;F brYj;jpl Btz;oa brhj;Jthp, fPH;f;fz;l tptug;go brYj;jhky; nUe;J tUfpwPh;fs;.  ne;j mwptpg;g[ bgw;w 7 jpdA;fSf;Fs; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s bjhif KGtJk; efuhl;rp fk;g;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;a{l;lh; ikaj;jpy; brYj;jp fk;g;a{l;lhpy; urPJ bgw;Wf;bfhs;SkhW bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.

The opposite party clearly stated that if he has paid any amount in excess the same will be adjusted in the future taxes due on confirmation of the same, but the complainant has not produced any receipt for the amount paid earlier.     Admittedly the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.57,974/- under receipt Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 on 22.7.05 for arrear of tax in that period.   But the complainant has not proved the contention that he has paid an excess tax of Rs.10,418/- through receipts or any documents.

8.         Hence, taking all the above facts into consideration from the contention in the complaint and the counter, as well as proof affidavit of the both the parties, and from the documents Ex.A1 to A10, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party herein.  Hence we answer this point (a) as against the complainant herein.

9.         POINT NO : (b)

            In view of our findings on point (a), since, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party herein.   We have also come to the conclusion that the complainant is not at all entitled to any relief asked for by him, in this complaint.  Hence we answer this point (b) also as against the complainant herein.

10.       In the result this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 27^th day of June  2011.               

MEMBER-I                               MEMBER-II                                             PRESIDENT.

List of Documents:

Complainant’s Exhibits:

Ex.A1-  16.3.95         - X-copy of receipt for Rs.3582.

Ex.A2- 27.5.98          - X-copy of receipt for Rs.1791/-

Ex.A3- 2.11.00          - X-copy of receipt for Rs.4478/-

Ex.A4- 2.6.99            - X-copy of notice by Vaniyambadi Municipality, Vellore District.

Ex.A5-            --          - X-copy of notice by Vaniyambadi Municipality, Vellore District

Ex.A6- 22.7.05          - X-copy of receipt for Rs.19,690/-

Ex.A7- 22.7.05          - X-copy of receipt for Rs.38284/-

Ex.A8- 8.11.05          - X-copy of reminder letter by the complainant.

Ex.A9- 11.1.05          - X-copy of legal notice.

Ex.A10- 5.1.07          - X-copy of notice Vaniyambadi Municipality, Vellore District

Opposite party’s Exhibits:   ..Nil..

MEMBER-I                               MEMBER-II                                         PRESIDENT.