Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/19/75

Gurbir Singh Oberoi - Complainant(s)

Versus

E.O. M.C Ropar - Opp.Party(s)

Suraj Pal Singh,Adv

13 Nov 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. : 75 of 16.07.2019

                                 Date of decision                        : 13.11.2019

 

Gurbir Singh Oberoi, aged about 67 years, resident of House No.394, Dashmesh Nagar, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar. 

                                                                      ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar

2. President, Municipal Committee, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar

   ...Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Gurbir Singh Oberoi, complainant in person along with his counsel Sh. Suraj Pal Singh, Advocate  

Sh. Amar Raj Saini, Adv. counsel for O.Ps.   

 

                                           ORDER

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

1.       Gurbir Singh Oberoi, aged about 67 years, resident of House No.394, Dashmesh Nagar, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar, has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to immediate effect transfer of ownership of booth No.37, Bela Chowk, Part I, Scheme Ropar in the record of Municipal Committee, Rupnagar in the name of complainant; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation; to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses. 

2.       Brief facts made out from the complaint are that the complainant had purchased one booth No.37 Bela Chowk Part 1, Scheme Roper from Neeraj Kumar son of Sh. Madan Lal, House No.46 Hargobind Nagar, Ropar, vide registered deed dated 19.10.2011. After purchase, the complainant requested the O.Ps to transfer the ownership of the booth in his name on the basis of registered deed dated 19.10.2011. After receiving the letter of the complainant, the O.Ps. informed him vide letter dated 2.1.2012, 22.1.2013 that property tax amounting to Rs.25569/- for the said property booth No.37, Bela Part I, Scheme Ropar for the year 2009 to 2012, is pending and till this amount is not cleared, transfer of property would not be done in his name. The O.Ps. pleaded that as per the clause No.13 of the registered deed, any pending/prior dues are to be cleared by previous owner Sh. Neeraj Kumar son of Sh. Madan Lal, resident of House No.46, Hargobind Nagar, Rupnagar or by his GPA holder Sh. Karamjit Singh son of Amar Singh, resident of House No.3039A/4, Bela Chowk, Rupnagar. The complainant has requested so many times through letters to supply the record pertaining to transfer of ownership of said property but the official of the O.Ps. are putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Hence, this complaint.

3.       On being put to the notice, the O.Ps appeared through his counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has not come before this forum with clean hands as the house tax of the year 2009 to 2013 has not been deposited by the owner. The complainant had purchased the shop in question from Neeraj Kumar son of Madan Lal vide sale deed dated 19.10.2011. At that time the seller or purchaser had not taken the No Objection certificate from the O.Ps. The letter No.3 dated 2.1.2012 and 225 dated 22.1.2013 were written to the complainant. The total amount of Rs.36923/- and interest after 2013 till depositing the amount is due. After then the property tax was introduced instead of house tax. The complainant has deposited the Property Tax after 2013, but the earlier house tax is still due. As per the procedure the name of the complainant cannot be changed till the clearance of the due amount. On merits, it is stated that letter No.3 dated 2.1.2012 and 226 dated 22.1.2013 were written to the complainant. The amount was correctly calculated. It was the duty of the complainant to inquire from the office of O.Ps. regarding the pending dues before purchasing the property. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

5.       On being called upon to do so, the complainant has tendered his duly sworn his affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 and closed the evidence. The representative of O.Ps. have tendered duly sworn affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and closed the evidence    

5.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.       Complainant counsel Sh. Suraj Pal Singh, argued that Gurbir Singh purchased the property vide sale deed dated 19.10.2011 from one Neeraj Kumar. Before raising the constructions complainant applied to the O.P. for the transfer of the booth No.37 in his favour vide letter dated 11.11.2011. When the complainant requested the O.Ps. then OPs demanded the tax vide letter dated 2.1.2012, 22.1.2013, amounting to approximately Rs.25569/-. When the complainant purchased the property vide sale deed dated 19.10.2014 then OPs has no right to demand the said amount pertaining to the ownership of one Neeraj Kumar. Learned counsel referred the documentary evidence and prayed to allow the complaint seeking directions to the OPs. to incorporate his name in the record of the O.Ps.

7.       O.Ps. counsel Sh. Amar Raj Saini, argued that as per the pleadings, complainant purchased the property on 19.10.2011 and the house tax/property tax is pertaining to the year 2009 to 2012 total Rs.25569/- including interest. Learned counsel prayed that firstly the complaint is time barred as the house tax is pertaining to year 2009 to 2012. Further there is specific recital in the sale deed dated 19.11.2011 that the arrears will be paid by the owner Neeraj Kumar and subsequent by the complainant Gurbir Singh. Some part of the arrears is pertaining to the ownership Neeraj Kumar and some part is related to the complainant. Learned counsel further referred that the documentary evidence Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 and prayed that the complaint is not maintainable firstly complainant is not the consumer secondly the present complaint is time barred and no relief can be granted in favour of the complainant. Complaint be dismissed with costs.

8.       Complainant approached to this forum on the basis of sale deed dated 19.10.2011 and then on the basis of Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 which proves the correspondence w.e.f. 2.1.2012 till 27.9.2017. If the forum considers the correspondence between the parties and the liability of the complainant then it comes to the opinion that complainant is not the consumer of O.Ps as the complainant did not purchase any item from the O.Ps and has only deposited the house tax vide receipt Ex.C10 to Ex.C12. Secondly, the controversial period is 2009 to 2012 and the present complaint was filed in the month of July 2019. As per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the limitation to file the complaint is two years. So hopelessly the complaint is time barred.

9.       If the forum even ignores the point of limitation and as well as whether the complainant is consumer even then on merit no relief can be granted because of the reason Ex.C1 is dated 2.1.2012 and letter is addressed from the side of the O.Ps. to the complainant. Similar status is of Ex.C2 and then Ex.C4 is written request dated 3.8.2012 on behalf of complainant to the O.Ps. vide which he requested for the transfer of the title of the booth No.37 and then to condone the house tax. Appreciating all the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12, the forum has come to the conclusion that on the basis of the said documents there is no deficiency on the part of O.Ps as for as the dispute is between seller (Neeraj Kumar) and buyer (Gurbir Singh complainant) for the period of 2009 to 2012. Some part of the liability goes with the complainant and some part of the liability goes to Neeraj Kumar. Appreciating the totality of the documents, no relief can be granted in favour of the complainant. Hence, the complaint is without merit.

10.     In the light of discussion made above, the complaint stands dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own cost.

11.     The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith,           free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed           and consigned to Record Room.

 

            ANNOUNCED                                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

            Dated.13.11.2019                                     PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                               (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                   MEMBER