By. Smt. Bindu. R, President:

            This complaint is filed by Dr. Suresh Babu, Ombathedathil House, Mananthavady against Mananthavady Municipality alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party.

            2.  The gist of the complaint is that the Complainant purchased 01 Are 01 sqm of property along with a house on 11.03.2013 from one Joseph on payment of cost and registered in Sub Registrar’s office, Mananthavady.  AT the time of purchase of property the Complainant received the sale deed along with Form 1 B and all the supporting documents of the property and the property was within the jurisdiction of Mananthavady Pachayath and subsequently Mananthavady Panchayath was turned into the status of Mananthavady Municipality.  The Complainant had been remitting the property tax very promptly but on 04.11.2022 the Complainant when paid tax, received a receipt bearing No.1/21693 showing payment tax for the 1^st half year for 2016-17 and also for 2^nd half year for 2016-17.   According to the Complainant it is seen that the property tax is charged again for the same period.  Complainant states that on enquiry it was informed that it is an error in the Computer system of the newly formed Mananthavady Municipality, since it is formed in the year 2013 converting Panchayath in to Municipality and also since the house and the property of the Complainant is included in it.  The Complainant had to pay excessive property tax and thereby caused deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  Since the Opposite Party had informed the Complainant to prepare a plan of the house, the Complainant had engaged an engineer to get the certificate ready.  Since the Complainant had not received the ownership certificate from the Opposite Party and also to get back the excess amount paid towards building tax which amounts to deficiency of service from the side of the Opposite Party and hence the Complainant approached this Commission praying for issuing orders to the Opposite Party to refund the additional amount received from the Complainant along with compensation for Rs.1 Lakh and for other reliefs.

            3.  Upon notice from the Commission the Opposite Party submitted a reply and no subsequent appearance or representation is there from the side of the Opposite Party.  In the reply it is stated that they have received an application from Mananthavady Police Station on 15.10.2022 requesting for the Ownership Certificate of a building MP4/719 in connection with Crime No.972/22 of Mananthavady Police Station.  The No.4/719 pertains to Ozhakkody Bhagam and it was understood that number given in 1993 which is not available in the software of the Opposite Party and also in the Assessment Register and the same was informed to the Police Station. Subsequently Dr. Suresh Babu reached the Municipality and applied for the new number and accordingly No.30/367(2) was assigned to him in the place of 4/719.  When the new number was assigned as 30/367(2) the property tax in respect of the above building is determined with retrospective effect which is in accordance with law.  30/367(2) is having 51M² Plinth area, the annual tax of which is Rs.587/-.  As per Receipt No.122170108142 dated 04.11.2022 an amount of Rs.881/- is remitted which is for the year 2016-17 (full year) 2017-18 (half year).  There is a balance of dues of Rs.3,228/- to be remitted to the Opposite Party which was informed to the Complainant and no complaint or appeal against the said assessment is received by the Opposite Party.

4.  Evidence in this case consists of chief affidavit and Ext.A1 and A2 from the side of Complainant.  There was no representation for the Opposite Party during the proceedings and no evidence submitted by the Opposite Party, except the statement.

            5.  Following are the points to be analyzed in this case.

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Commission?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party?
3. The quantum of compensation and costs of proceedings to be awarded in the case?

6.  As far as Point No.1 is concerned the Commission examined the content of the complaint on prima facie taking into account the allegations raised by the Complainant stating that huge amount as tax charged for the same period from the Complainant, due to technical and administrative reasons of the Opposite Party.  All the other criteria fixed for a consumer complaint coincided in the case and therefore the Commission entertained the complaint finding maintainable on prima facie examination.

7.  On analysis of the complaint along with the statement filed by the Opposite Party reveals that the amount charged as per Receipt No.122170108142 dated 04.11.2022 is for the building 30/367(2) and not for building No.4/719.  The amount thus charged for the building having 51M² floor area which is also worked out and shown by the Opposite Party.  The base of the complaint could not be established by the Complainant since the Opposite Party is of the version that the property tax is charged for the building bearing No.30/367(2) and not for building No.4/719,  even though it is admitted by the Opposite Party that 30/367(2) is the number reassigned for building No.4/719.  Hence the Complainant can approach the appellate authority of Opposite Party or the Opposite Party themselves to get his grievances redressed. 

8.  Considering the entire aspects in details the Commission is of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service from the side of the Opposite Party and Point No.2 is found against the Complainant.   Since Point No.2 is found against the Complainant Point No.3 is not considered by the Commission and therefore the complaint is dismissed without costs.

In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28^th day of February 2024.

Date of Filing:-19.01.2023.

PRESIDENT   : Sd/-

MEMBER       : Sd/-

MEMBER       : Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:-

PW1.              Dr. Suresh Babu. O. K.                              Medical Doctor.

Witness for the Opposite Party:-

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:-

A1.                  Copy of Receipt.                                         Dt:06.03.2017.

A2.                  Copy of Receipt.                                         Dt:04.11.2022.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-

                        Nil.

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.

Kv/-