DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 20th day of January 2017
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 23/12/2015
: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
(C.C.No.199/2015)
Kalyanakrishnan.K.P.
S/o.Madhavan Nair,
Vizhakkattu Kulambil House,
Kayiliyad (PO),
Chalavara Panchayath
Ottapalam Taluk,
Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv.V.Shanmughanandan)
V/s
Secretary
Chalavara Panchayath,
Ottapalam Taluk,
Palakkad - Opposite party
(By Adv.K.R.Santhoshkumar )
O R D E R
By Shri. V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
Brief facts of complaint.
In this case complainant purchased on 6-1-2014 1.48 cents of land and two room building with numbers 9/110 and 9/111 respectively. After getting registration (registration No.92) in order to transfer electricity connection of the building in his name, for getting ownership certificate, the complainant applied for it along with a copy of the title deed. In Village office he was told to produce tax receipt of the land and possession certificate in order to accept his application. On 15/10/2014 the complainant was asked to pay tax as per demand notice in the name of previous owner of the land and building Mr. Paluthodi Sankaranarayanan. The complainant also received undated notice of the Panchayath alongwith this demand notice. He refused to pay tax on land and building purchased by him in his name, because demand notice was in the name of the previous owner. In the copy of the title deed is included the building purchased by him, and it was also recorded and informed. When asked for ownership certificate on this basis tax receipt and possession certificate were compulsory, the complainant was told, since resurvey was not completed, the complainant could remit the tax at Village Office on 20/11/2014. He got possession certificate on 30/12/2014. On 7/1/2015 with all documents the complainant submitted application for ownership certificate in Panchayath. Accepting the application Panchayath told the complainant that they would inform him if certificate is ready. When the complainant did not receive any reply, on 13/11/2015 he enquired with the Panchayath Office and he was told that Ownership certificate was not ready. Later on when he was informed that ownership certificate was ready on 19th November the complainant enquired with Panchayath Office and he was informed that since the complainant applied late, a fine of Rs.500/- was to be remitted by him. In the demand notice or in the undated notice received along with the demand notice no indication about payment of fine for the late application was made by the opposite party, but only submission of necessary documents was demanded. The complainant does not have any employment and for the purpose of livelihood to do something, electricity connection should be in his name and for this purpose ownership certificate is essential. Hence by paying a fine of Rs.500/- the same was obtained. That without conducting resurvey possession certificate cannot be received by paying tax in the village office is known clearly to the Panchayath authorities. In addition, that in the copy of the title deed the building was registered in the name of the complainant was clearly recorded. Even then on the basis of humanitarian consideration the certificate was not given to him and since he applied late, according to new Rule he was unnecessarily made to pay fine. The change in the Building Rules from time to time was not informed to the people by Panchayath by way of notice or other means and when enquired about this, he was given reply that the order was “in the big book”; the relevant portions in the “big order” were not mentioned in the notice board for the sake of public information and when enquired about this complainant was informed by Panchayath authorities that the officer who accepted his application was transferred.
Since on 7/1/2015 the complainant applied for ownership certificate after constant enquiries and difficulties the complainant got the certificate on 23/11/2015. The certificate was to be obtained within a week but after a long delay he got the certificate. Hence the complainant suffered from lack of means of livelihood and mental agony.
Therefore, it is prayed to the Hon’ble Forum that orders may be issued to Panchayath authorities to give the complainant compensation of Rs.25,000/- for suffering undergone by him due to delay in getting the ownership certificate and the unlawful fine recovered from him for the alleged lapse on his part in getting possession certificate and paying tax.
The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to opposite party.
As per the version filed by the opposite party, he contends that this complaint does not stand before the Forum because the same does not in any way come within the definition of consumer disputes with the opposite party. The complainant has got no “service provider / trader consumer relation”. Hence before the Forum this complaint does not legally stand. Therefore the complaint is not legally maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation. According to opposite party the complainant has filed an application for transfer of ownership of building to his name in Chalavara Grama Panchayath office. Examining the documents filed alongwith the application it has been convinced that the above buildings included property transfer document which was obtained by the complainant, after registration from the previous owner on 6/1/2014 as per deed no. 92/1/2014 of Cherpulassery Sub Registrar Office. According to Rule 22 (1) of Kerala Panchayath Raj (Property Tax, service tax, surcharge) Rules after transfer document is registered within three months, the person who is liable to pay property tax should send a notice regarding the transfer to the Secretary. As per Rule 22(5), if there is a lapse on the part of a person in giving notice regarding property transfer to the Secretary within the prescribed date or in filing documents, from the person so failing a fine of rupees not exceeding Rs.500/- can be recovered. These Rules are published in the Extra ordinary Gazette as No.81 dated January 14, 2011 as per SRO No.37/2011. Since the complainant was not prepared to pay the amount as per the above Rules, delay occurred in transferring ownership of building numbers 10/152, 10/153 (old building numbers 9/110 & 9/111) to the name of the complainant. As per Kerala Panchayath Raj (Property Tax, Service Sub Tax, Surcharge) Rules the complainant remitted Rs.500/- (fees receipt no.1150910378 dtd,23/11/2015) and in the Grama Panchayath Property Tax register ownership of the building was transferred to the name of the complainant.
It is prayed that since the complainant does not come in any way in the definition of consumer, between the complainant and opposite party no relationship as service provider / trader – consumer exists the complaint submitted without any legal validity to the Hon’ble Forum may be dismissed with cost.
Complainant and opposite party filed chief affidavit. Opposite party filed IA.40/2016 seeking permission to cross examine the complainant. Complainant was cross examined as PW1. Ext.A1 to A9 were marked from the part of the complainant. Complainant filed an application seeking permission to cross examine opposite party. Opposite party was cross examined as DW1. Ext.A10 was marked during cross examination of the opposite party as DW1. From the side of opposite party, are filed SRO no.37/2013 as per no.81 of the Extra Ordinary Gazette dated January 14,2011 and office note of 07/01/2015. They were marked as Ext.B1 and B2 from the side of the opposite party; Ext.B2 was marked subject to proof.
The following issues arise in this case
1.Whether there is any negligence / deficiency in service from the side of opposite party ?
2.If so, what is the relief?
Issues 1 & 2
In this case the complainant purchased 1.48 cents of land and two room building from Mr.Paluthodi Sankaranarayanan on 6/1/2014. He applied for ownership certificate on 7/1/2015 to opposite party alongwith a copy of the title deed, tax receipt and possession certificate and the receipt of his application was marked as Ext.A2 on 7/1/2015. He applied for ownership certificate to transfer electricity connection of the building in his name alongwith a copy of title deed. The complainant got the ownership certificate on 23/11/2015 vide Ext.A9. For the delay in submitting properly the application for ownership change certificate he was charged “Ownership change fees” vide Ext.A3. The complainant applied for ownership certificate on 7/1/2015 but he got the same on 23/11/15 after a delay of more than 10 months vide Ext.A9.
In his deposition as DW1 the opposite party told that as per Ext.B1 copies of title deed, tax receipt and possession certificate should be produced alongwith application for change of ownership. On 20/12/2014 the complainant has paid land tax in village office and on 30/12/2014 possession certificate was issued to the complainant by Village office and the complainant applied for ownership certificate on 7/1/2015 which was issued to him on 23/11/2015. As per Ext.A3, opposite party admitted that “ownership change fees” was recovered from the complainant and there is no legal authority to recover ownership change fees; fine only can be levied. It may be a clerical mistake to have written Rs.500/- as “ownership change fees”. There is defect in the application for ownership change and no notice was sent by the opposite party to the complainant pointing out the mistake within 10 months as admitted by the opposite party, in his deposition as DW1.
From the above it is clear to the Forum that although the complainant properly applied for change in ownership for getting electricity connection, on 7/1/2015 after payment of land tax and enclosing copies of tax receipt and possession certificate, only on 23/11/2015 after a lapse of over 10 months ownership certificate is seen issued to him by the opposite party. Further the opposite party was not seen to have sent the complainant any notice during these 10 months stating that there were defects in his application for ownership certificate which should be rectified. Further it is also observed that the complainant was asked to pay tax as per demand notice issued by the opposite parties, but notice was seen issued in the name of the previous owner of the land and building. Revised demand notice in the name of the complainant was not seen issued by the opposite parties. Hence, we observed that there is lapse on the part of opposite party.
In the light of the above, we observe that there has occurred negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
Therefore the complaint is allowed.
We order the opposite party to pay the complainant Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) by way of compensation for mental agony suffered by him due to long delay in issuing the ownership certificate to him and to reimburse Rs.500/-(Rupees Five hundred only) wrongly collected from him as “ownership change fees”. Further the complainant should also be paid Rs.2,500/-(Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) by the opposite party by way of litigation expenses incurred by the complainant.
Order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which interest @9% per annum on the total amount due should also be paid to the complainant.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 20th day of January 2017.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Photocopy of Title Deed
Ext.A2 - Photocopy of receipt for applying ownership certificate
Ext.A3 – Photocopy of receipt for imposing fine for getting ownership certificate
dtd.23/11/2015
Ext.A4 - Photocopy of receipt issued by village officer, Chalavara
Ext.A5 – Photocopy of possession certificate issued by Village office, Chalavara
Ext.A6 -Photocopy of Notice issued by Chalavara Grama Panchayath
Ext.A7 – Photocopy of Demand notice issued by Chalavara Grama Panchayath
Ext.A8 – Photocopy of Receipt issued by Chalavara Grama Panchayath dated
22/11/2013
Ext.A9 –Photocopy of Ownership Certificate dated 12/11/15
Ext.A10 –Letter dated 4/6/2016 issued by Chalavara Grama Panchayath
Witness examined on the side of complainant
PW1 – Kalyanakrishnan
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Ext.B1 – Copy of Gazette SRO 37/2011 passed by LSGD(RD) Dept. dated 14/01/2011
Ext.B2 –Copy of Office note dated 7/1/2015 of Chalavara Grama Panchayath
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
DW1 –Sajeevkumar.K.B.
Cost
Rs.2,500/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.
