| Complaint Case No. CC/10/28 |
| | | | 1. Devarasetty Venkata Laxman Babu,S/o. late Satyanarayana,D.No.2-2-46,46/1,Gandhi Chowk,Khammam | | Devarasetty Venkata Laxman Babu,S/o. late Satyanarayana,D.No.2-2-46,46/1,Gandhi Chowk,Khammam | | Khammam | | Andhra Pradesh | | 2. Smt.Devarsetty Narsamma ,W/o. late Stayanarayana ,D.No.2-2-46,46/1, Gandhi Chowk ,Khammam. | | Smt.Devarsetty Narsamma ,W/o. late Stayanarayana ,D.No.2-2-46,46/1, Gandhi Chowk ,Khammam. | | Khammam | | Andhra Pradesh |
| ...........Complainant(s) | | Versus | | 1. The Commisioner ,Khammam Muncipality ,Khammam Town. | | The Commisioner ,Khammam Muncipality ,Khammam Town. | | Khammmam | | Andhra Pradesh |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | | BEFORETHE DISTIRCT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 4th day of January 2011. CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com, L.L.B., President 2. Smt. V. Vijaya Rekha, B.Sc. B.L., Member 3. Sri R. Kiran Kumar, B.Sc., L.L.B., Member C.C.No.28/2010 Between: 1) Devarasetty Venkata Laxman Babu, s/o. late Satyanarayana, age: 51 years, occu: Business. 2) Smt.Devarasetty Narsamma, w/o. late Satyanarayana, age: 72 years, occu: House wife. Both are residents of D.No.2-2-46, 46/1, Gandhi Chowk, Khammam town. …. Complainants. And The Commissioner, Khammam Municipality, Khammam town. …Opposite party. This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri.K.Radha Krishna, Advocate for complainant, Sri.K.Uttam Kumar, Advocate for opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, this forum passed the following: ORDER (Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, Member) This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainants are the legal heirs of late Devarasetty Satyanarayana, the house bearing municipal No.2-2-46, 46/1 situated at Gandhi Chowk, Khammam town stands in the name of late Devarasetty Satyanarayana and he died on 16-1-1997. As per the averments made in the complaint, late Devarasetty Satyanarayana had constructed house No.2-2-46, 46/1 by obtaining permission from the municipality, Khammam with approved plan in the year 1980. From the date of construction, he has regularly paid house tax demanded by the opposite party. After his death, the complainants being legal heirs have been paying the house tax and property tax and also submitted that the opposite party had issued property tax demand notice No.11061000170114, dt.30-10-2009 vide assessment No.1106000513, demanding Rs.1,368/-, arrears of Rs.10,900/-, in total Rs.12,268/- for the second half year 2009-10 towards UAC charges. Previously also, the opposite party had issued demand notice by including UAC charges to the complainant, as there was no time to approach municipality to enquire about the same, they paid the demanded amount. After payment of demanded amount, the complainants came to know that UAC charges included by opposite party, due to filing of O.S.No.94/2002 on the file of Prl.Junior Civil Judge, at Khammam by the complainants. The opposite parties keeping a grudge in their mind and included UAC penalty and also submitted that in fact the complainants are not liable to pay any UAC charges as the said premises was constructed after obtaining permission from the municipality with the approved plan. After lapse of more than 30 years, the municipality is claiming UAC charges, which is illegal, arbitrary and without any basis. The opposite party refused to exclude UAC charges of Rs.12,268/- under said notice, dt.30-12-2009, as such the complainants approached the forum for redressal. Apart from the complaint, the complainant filed the following documents, marked as Exs.A.1 to A.3. Ex.A.1 - Photocopy of Property tax demand notice, dt.30-10-2009 Ex.A.2 - Photocopy of e-seva receipt, dt.29-3-2010 Ex.A.3 - Photocopy of building construction permission sanction order, dt.29-5-1980. On receipt of notice, the opposite party appeared through their counsel and prayed time for counter. Inspite of giving several adjournments, the opposite party did not file counter. Heard oral arguments from counsel for complainant. Upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments, now the point that arose for consideration is, Whether the complainants are entitled for the claim? Point: In this case the complainants are the legal heirs of Devarasetty Satyanarayana, who died on 16-1-1997. As per the complainants, late Devarasetty Satyanarayana had constructed H.No.2-2-46, 46/1 by obtaining permission from opposite party with the approved plan in the year, 1980-81. From the date of construction, he has been regularly paying house tax demanded by the opposite party and after his death, the complainants are paying house tax and property tax. As per the complainants the opposite party had issued demand notice on 30-10-2009 by including UAC charges. As there was no time, the complainants paid the demanded amount and after payment, on enquiry they came to know that keeping the grudges in mind due to filing of O.S.94/2002 on the file of Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, the opposite party included UAC charges, which is illegal and prayed to return UAC charges of Rs.12,268/-, which was collected on 29-3-2010 and also prayed not to demand UAC charges in future also. As per the complaint, the father of the complainant No.1 and husband of complainant No.2 obtained permission long back in the year 1980, on that he had constructed a house and has been regularly paying house tax, as demanded by the opposite party. As per the complainants, the opposite party had issued property tax demand notice, Ex.A.1 on 30-10-2009 by including UAC charges. The complainants already paid UAC charges as demanded by the opposite party and now they filed this complaint for return of the same and also as per the complainants they already filed a suit vide O.S.No.94/2002 before the Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Khammam for decreasing of property tax. The imposing of heavy tax and UAC charges do not attract the jurisdiction of the consumer forum and civil courts can only decide the same. The complainants in the present case, nowhere they pleaded for deficiency of service of opposite party and demanding only for return of UAC charges already paid. The complainants are knocking the wrong doors where they could not expect remedy because the jurisdiction of the forum is for deficiency of service between consumer and the service provider. From the above we are of the opinion that this forum cannot adjudicate the matter which is beyond the purview of this Forum. Therefore, we cannot interfere in this matter, as civil court can adjudicate the same. With these observations, the complaint is disposed of by providing an opportunity to the complainant to approach the civil court for the redressal of his grievance. In the result, the complaint is disposed of. Dictated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this 4th day of January, 2011. PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRIC CONSUEMRS FORUM, KHAMMAM APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined for complainant: None Witnesses examined for opposite parties: None Exhibits marked for Complainant: Ex.A.1 - Photocopy of Property tax demand notice, dt.30-10-2009 Ex.A.2 - Photocopy of e-seva receipt, dt.29-3-2010 Ex.A.3 - Photocopy of building construction permission sanction order, dt.29-5-1980. Exhibits marked for opposite parties:- Nil - PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRIC CONSUEMRS FORUM, KHAMMAM | |
