Delhi

StateCommission

A/10/400

MCD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SYED FAZLUR REHMAN - Opp.Party(s)

25 Apr 2016

ORDER

 

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Arguments : 25.04.2016

Date of Decision : 03.05.2016

Appeal No.400/10

 

(Arising out of the order dated 08.01.2010 passed in Complaint Case No1173/2006 by the

District Consumer Redressal Forum-North, Delhi.)

In the matter of:

Municipal Corporation of Delhi,

Through its Commissioner,

Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,

Delhi.                                                                              …..........Appellant

 

Versus

Syed Fazlur Rehman,

S/o Late Sh. Nawab Ali,

R/o 550, Gali Hakinji Wali,

Churi Walan, Delhi.                                                         .. ….....Respondent

                                                                

CORAM

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1. Being dissatisfied with order dated 01.08.2010 passed by District Forum-North in Complaint Case No.1176/06, the OP has come in the present appeal. The dispute pertains to demand of house tax raised by the OP/appellant.  In the year 2003-04, the respondent deposited Rs.33,376/- towards house tax and appellant showed credit of rs.29,166/- in favour of respondent.  Rectification order dated 19.09.2003 was passed by Asstt. Assessor & Collector of appellant who withdrew notice proposing rateable value of Rs.1,44,430/- w.e.f. 01.04.1997, rateable value of Rs.1700/- was maintained w.e.f. 01.04.1997. The respondent claimed refund of tax paid in excess of rateable value of Rs.1700/-.  Same was allowed. In addition, appellant was directed to pay compensation of Rs.2000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. Order was passed exparte.  Now in appeal, appellant has raised the question whether Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, whether appellant could be attributed with deficiency in service when it was discharging obligations within the parameters of policies framed by it and approved by competent authority.  On merits, the appellant has pleaded that due to typographical error, the R.V. mentioned in D&C was registered as Rs.1,14,430/- instead of Rs.1,44,430/- and therefore the lesser bill was raised.  Further it was revealed that respondent has paid tax @ RV 29800/- and it was not clear as to how the RV was taken as Rs.29800/- instead of Rs.1,44,430/-.

 

2. We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments of counsel for appellant. Respondent was not appearing since long and so we did not have privilege to listen arguments of respondent.

 

3. The counsel for appellant argued that respondent is not a consumer as he has not hired any service from appellant. So there could be no question of deficiency in service.  The appellant charged the amount in exercise of its statutory powers to levy and collect house tax, the same could be challenged only by way of appeal before Municipal Taxation Tribunal constituted u/s 169 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.

 

4. On analogical ground the counsel for appellant relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Associated Journals Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1995 Delhi 69 in which even Hon’ble High Court declined to grant interim relief in case of house tax on the ground that Civil Suit was not maintainable . That being so, the question of consumer court granting relief in matters of house tax become beyond imagination.

 

5. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and complaint is dismissed.

 

6. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost and one copy also be  sent to District Forum for information.

 

7. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)