Judgment : Dt.10.1.2018

Shri S. K. Verma, President

            This is a complaint made by one Mrs. Nivedita Bose, residing at 5, Dr. K. D. Mukherjee Road, P.S.-Parnasree, Kolkata-700 060 against Mrs. Shikha Chakraborty, 10/3, Parnasree Pally, Behala, P.S.-Parnasree, Kolkata-700 060 praying pay arrear taxes to the tune of Rs.89,179/- to the KMC, compensation of Rss5,00,000/- to the Complainant and litigation cost.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant purchased a flat measuring 750 sq.ft. by a deed of conveyance dt.8.12.2010 in the North-East side of the ground floor of 237, Parnasree Pally, Kolkata-700 060. Complainant, at the time of purchase of the said flat paid the full consideration money and so the Complainant is a consumer. Further, Complainant has stated that in the year 2014 she received a tax bill from the KMC from which she came to know that an amount ofRs.89,179/- has fallen due in respect of her premises together with other premises for the period from 2006 to 2010. Complainant has stated that prior to registration of the deed it was mutually agreed by an agreement dt.24.4.1998 between the  Complainant and the OPs that the OPs would pay all the arrear taxes prior to the date of registration of sale deed, which was a term in the deed of sale dt.8.12.2010. Complainant  also states as per development agreement dt.24.4.1998 between the OP No.1 & 2 the OPs would clear all the arrear taxes. Complainant has stated that there was a series of correspondences between the Complainant and the OP No.1 regarding due taxes. But said correspondences did not yield any result. Complainant has further stated on 20.1.2015 she made one correspondence with the OP No.1 regarding the clearance of the arrear taxes. Again she made correspondence on 14.3.2015. But nothing could be done. So, Complainant filed this case.

            OP No.1 filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint. Further this OP has stated that OP No.1 was not a vendor. In the deed of conveyance dt.8.12.2010 and OP No.2 was the land-owner conforming party. The OP No.1 further has stated that in the said deed of conveyance dt.8.12.2010 this OP No.1 was the developer/confirming party and one Sadananda Basak being represented by his constituted attorney Samarendra Chakrabaorty and there is no whisper of the names of OP No.2a, b & c as land owner. It is pertinent to mention here that the OP No.1a has expired in the year 2015. OP No.1 has stated that the Complainant purchased the said flat in question in the year 2010 and till 2014 the Complainant did not mutate her name in the records of KMC in respect of her purchased flat for the reasons best known to her. Since OP No.1 handed over all the flats except the purchased flat in question of any arrear tax is responsible of OP No.1. In addition, this OP has denied specifically the allegations made by the Complainant.

            Other OPs did not contest the case by filing written version and so the case is heard ex-parte against them.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief to which OP No.1  filed questionnaire to which Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply.  Similarly, OP No.1 filed evidence to which Complainant filed questionnaire to which OP No.1 filed affidavit-in-reply.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            On perusal of the prayer portion of the complaint petition, it appears that the Complainant has prayed for direction upon the OP to pay the arrear taxes to the tune of Rs.89,179/- to KMC and also for compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-.

            In this regard, it appears from the complaint petition that this arrear tax as per the complainant is for the period from 2006 to 2010. Complainant purchased the flat in 2010 so it was the duty of the Complainant to see and verify about this fact as to whether payment of taxes have been made. OP No.1 has stated in his written version that in the deed dt.8.12.2010 she is not the vendor and so she cannot be held liable for payment of tax. Here Complainant is one Mrs. Nivedita Bose and OP No.1 is Mrs. Shikha Chakraborty the deed dt.8.12.2010 was executed between one Sankar Basak, vendor and Nivedita Bose is the purchaser, Sikha Chakraborty is the developer and is the confirming party. So the statement of OP No.1 appears to be correct that she is not a vendor and Complainant cannot be a consumer of OP No.1. Further, it appears that Complainant purchased the property in 2010 and has filed this case after a lapse of about 6 years which is not admissible as per C.P.Act. Simply by issuing two letters in 2015 cannot confer jurisdiction upon the District Forum for adjudicating the dispute.

            As such we are of the view that this complaint is not maintainable and barred by limitation.

Hence,

ordered

            CC/583/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest.