JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi, President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Dr. Veeranna Shetty against Opposite City Municipal Council Corporation, Raichur U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the Opposite to provide a lawful and appropriate plot of the same size in the I.D.S.M.T. layout in lieu of the plot already sold to the complainant vide sale deed dt. 09-11-92 alternatively to direct the Opposite to pay the present market value of the plot amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/-, to award an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony with cost. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, he purchased plot bearing No. 618 situated at I.D.S.M.T. layout measuring 12x15 meters carved out of Sy.No. 1226 & 1227 of Raichur for valuable consideration under registered sale deed dt. 09-11-92 from the Opposite Municipal Council Raichur. In pursuance of the said sale deed mutation of the plot was affected in his name by collecting mutation fees thereafter possession of the plot was not handed over and in the month of August 2008, he approached the Opposite for to pay Municipal Taxes of the plot and requested to issue property extract. The Opposite Municipal Council rejected to take the tax of the plot and to issue property extract on the ground that there was no approval of the said plot by the Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter he got issued legal notice to Respondent, shows its negligence in considering the request of him and thereby the Respondent Municipal Council found guilty under deficiency in its service, as such he filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in it. 3. Opposite Party Municipal Council Raichur, appeared in this case through its Advocate, filed detail written version by denying the execution of sale deed affecting mutation by collecting fees from the Opposite etc., It contended in further Paras- 2 & 3 on Page No.2 of its written version that Deputy Commissioner Raichur, along with other authorities of I.D.S.M.T. layout not approved the plan of the complainants plot with others plots and they resolved to cancel 600 plots, accordingly the mutation affected in the name of complainant with others were cancelled. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to pay any taxes, the municipality is not in a deficiency in its service. The present complaint is barred by limitation accordingly he prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, he purchased the plot bearing No. 618 carved out of Sy.No. 1226 & 1227 situated in I.D.S.M.T. layout Raichur under registered sale deed dt. 09-11-92 from Opposite Municipal Council for a valuable consideration, thereafter mutation affected in his name by receiving proper fees for it. Thereafter Respondent not handed over possession of the said plot, refusing to collect the taxes of it and not issuing property extract of it even after oral and written request on the ground that the said plot of him was not approved by the competent authorities and thereby Opposite Municipal Council found guilty under deficiency in its service.? 2. Whether complaint is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In affirmative. (2) In affirmative. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6 are marked. Sufficient time granted to the Respondent to file its affidavit-evidence and documents from 19-05-09 to 27-06-09, even then opposite not filed affidavit-evidence of any officers and no single document filed in support of its claim. 7. The Respondent Municipal Council denied the execution of sale deed in-respect of plot No. 618 measuring to the extent of 12x15 meters in its earlier Paras of written version. But it admitted in further Paras of its written version, however we have perused the Ex.P-1 registered sale deed executed by Opposite in favour of the complainant which shows that the plot No. 618 was sold to the complainant for consideration amount of Rs. 6,000/-, in the said sale deed there is no mentioning of handing over to the possession to the complainant. Ex.P-1(a) is the Map of the layout. Ex.P-2 & Ex.P-3 are the Tax Paid Receipts by the complainant. Ex.P-4 is the Mutation Order in the name of complainant. Ex.P-6 is the Encumbrance Certificate. All these documents shows the relationship of complainant with Opposite as a consumer and trader and it cannot be denied by the other side. 8. Ex.P-5 is the copy of legal notice issued to Opposite and the same was served on it by RPAD acknowledgement vide Ex.P-5(a). The said legal notice issued by the complainant to opposite wherein it is requested to take Municipal Taxes of the said plot. 9. The Respondent Municipal Council not adduced any evidence in support of its contention no single piece of document filed to establish the fact that it acted according to provisions of law in not receiving taxes and non issuing property extract to him. 10. It appears from the written version that learned Deputy Commissioner; Raichur has cancelled the approval of plot No. 618 with other plots, if it is the case of opposite, then why it keep silent after receipt of legal notice at Ex.P-5 why it not communicated the cancellation of the approval order of the said plot to complainant. Admittedly Ex.P-1 is the registered Sale Deed, Ex.P-4 Mutation in the name of complainant, these two documents cannot be cancelled by any authorities accepts the Civil Court and Revenue Court. The learned Deputy Commissioner cannot cancel such mutation extract without exercising proper course of law under Land Revenue Act or any other laws for time being in-force. In the said circumstances non receipt of property tax by opposite and non issuing property extract to the owner of the said plot by opposite is amounting to deficiency in its service. The complainant established this fact by filing his affidavit-evidence and documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 and material document at Ex.P-5. 11. There are no rebuttal affidavit-evidence and documentary evidence from the side of the opposite. The learned advocate for opposite remained absent on almost all hearing dates of this case, in the facts and circumstances stated above, we are of the view that complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Municipal Council Raichur. 12. The legal point that was taken by the opposite in its written version as this complaint is barred by limitation. In the light of such contention, we have referred the entire pleadings of complaint and his documentary evidences. It is his case that cause of action arose to him for to file this complaint was in the month of August 2008, when the Opposite refused to accept the tax by saying that approval of the plot was cancelled. This pleading is corroborated with legal notice Ex.P-5, there are no contrary evidences to reject such cause of action. Opposite Municipal Council not answered to legal notice at Ex.P-5 even though it was received by it vide postal acknowledgement Ex.P-5(a) in-view of keeping silence of Opposite to notice at Ex.P-5, it is presumed that this Respondent admitted the entire contents of legal notice Ex.P-5 (we have referred and relied on the ruling reported in 2007(3) CPR 1 Maharastra State Commission Kokan Travels (Kokan) V/s. Smt. Ramakant Naik) In the said circumstances, we are of the view that the present complaint is not barred by limitation as it is within the limitation period of two years from the date of cause of action. 13. As regards to the relief claimed by the complainant is concerned, it is the case of the Opposite that the approval of the said plot was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur vide his Order dt. 03-06-03 we are not conserned regarding the validity or otherwise of the said cancellation order of the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur, we only concerned regarding deficiency in service on the part of this Opposite, this fact was established by the complainant, under the said circumstances, we cannot direct this Opposite to hand over the possession of the said plot or to issue property tax of it by receiving taxes from the complainant. The complainant himself keeping in-view of all non possibilities, he prayed for a alternative relief for to direct the Respondent to pay the present market value of the plot amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- There are no satisfactorily and acceptable documents from the side of the complainant to hold that the present market value of the said plot is Rs. 3,00,000/-. The sale deed Ex.P-1 shows the market value of the said plot in the year 1992 as Rs. 6,000/-. No doubt there will be a change in the market value of the said plot frm that date to this date, we have no records to assess the present actual market value of the plot subsequent to sale deed Ex.P-1 of the year 1992, we are of the view that granting interest on the consideration amount of Rs. 6,000/- as noted in Ex.P-1 at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of sale deed dt. 09-11-92 till realization of the full amount will suffices to meet out the ends of justice. Accordingly the present complainant is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 6,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the sale deed till realization of the full amount. 14. As regards to the cost of litigation is concerned, we have taken note all the probable cost of the litigation and awarded the amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards cost and accordingly the complainant is entitled for to recover cost of Rs. 2,000/- from the Opposite, as such we answered Point Nos. 1 & 2 accordingly. POINT NO.3:- 15. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER This complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover a total sum of Rs. 8,000/- from the Opposite Municipal Corporation. The complainant is also entitled to recover interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on Rs. 6,000/- from the date of sale deed Ex.P-1 which is 09-11-92 till realization of the full amount. Further the complainant is entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the sum of Rs. 2,000/- from the date of the judgement till realization of the said amount. The Respondent is hereby granted one month time from the date of the judgement to deposit the entire amount as stated above. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 14-08-09) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
