This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          In short, complainant’s allegation is that he is the co-owner of the premises no.20, Manick Bose Ghat Road, P.S. Jorabagan, Kolkata – 700 006 and he is also an Assessee No.1102017000148 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and since 1976 he has been paying taxes at old rate at Rs.319/- and, thereafter, there was a revision of taxes in the annual valuation for which complainant files several cases before the Small Causes Court at Calcutta and as per order passed by the Ld. Chief Judge, Small Causes Court in M.A. Case No.2225 of 1992 the annual valuation as fixed by the Hearing Officer was reduced and KMC was directed to issue a fresh bill after adjustment of all the payment received by the OP.  But OP did not issue fresh bills after adjustment amount already paid by the complainant.  In the year 2004 KMC circulated a penalty of waiver scheme for unpaid property taxes and complainant tried for take part of the said waiver’s scheme of KMC but it appeared on the waiver LOI for unpaid property taxes bill sent by KMC to the complainant and the complainant came to learn from the bill that that the Assessee Collector did not adjust the payments which was paid at old rate of Rs.319-91 for earlier every quarter and for taking advantage of the waiver scheme complainant sent a notice dated 30-08-2006 to the Assistant Assessor Collector(North), the Kolkata Corporation through his Ld. Advocate to rectify the Item No.2 to 8 and to issue fresh bill after adjustment.  But the K.M.C. issued a bill again without any adjustment of complainant’s paid earlier bills at the old rate.

          Further KMC also circulated a waiver scheme of 2012 sent a bill to the complainant without adjustment of payment made by the complainant in earlier occasion at old rate from 1976 to 2001 for which complainant sent a letter to the KMC for deduction of the amount which was paid earlier as proper in terms of ledger whereby the complainant could not take opportunity from the waiver scheme.  So, complainant was compelled to pay excess amount without adjustment of the payment taxes paid in earlier quarters.

          For payment of upto date taxes complainant paid excess deposit of Rs.32,633/- to the KMC which is against the policy of natural justice and according to the rule of law Corporation Authority has no right to harass common people by taking excess payment from the assessee and complainant repeatedly requested the authority to rectify the bill but authority did not pay any heed and in the circumstances for the negligent and deficient manner of service complainant filed the case, repayment of excess amount of Rs.32,633/- and also interest and compensation etc.

          Against that OPs by filing written statement submitted that the present complaint is barred by non-joinder of necessary parties.  Complaint is barred by limitation and cause of action arose in the year 1992 and complainant already filed Civil Suit with the stipulated period and got such relief.  Thereafter, he did not pay it and further the complainant without taking proper steps filed the instant complaint after lapse of 20 years which is not maintainable according to law and, moreover, against that bill or order of the Hearing Officer complainant ought to have filed appeal before an Appellate Authority of the Assessment of Rent etc. of the KMC and entire matter related to assessment of rent by the Hearing Officer.  It is appellable before the Appellate Tribunal of KMC but complainant did not do that but even then the complainant got such order or Justice, from Small Causes Court and in the circumstances, the complainant is not tenable and is liable to be dismissed.

Decision with Reasons

On proper consideration of the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyer and OP and also considering the materials as filed by the complainant in this case and also the order of the in M.A. Case No.2592 passed for fixing violation on subsequent assessment and on subsequent assessment the revised bill was sent and that was of the year 1977-78 and that was sent in the year November, 2001, it is found that the complainant was asked to appear before the Hearing Officer for presenting his grievance and Assessment Officer heard it and passed such order but against that the complainant did not file any revision or appeal before the Appellate Tribunal of the Municipal Assessment and further on 29-07-1988 KMC sent notice for payment of Municipal Taxes but complainant even after receipt of it did not pay it.  Another factor is that complainant has tried to show that he has paid taxes quarterly up to 1984 but, thereafter, complainant has not produced any paper to show that he is paying any taxes but ultimately he has not cleared any dues but complainant from rectification of the excess amount filed re-assessed and charged and complainant was compelled to deposit it and said amount is about Rs.32,633/- but said receipt in respect of the payment of Rs.32,633/- is not filed by the complainant but from the complaint it is clear that everything had been disposed of on payment of entire amount up to 2001.  But after considering the entire facts and circumstances and also provision of KMC Act including the provision for assessment of the taxes by the Assessment Officer it is found that if any person is dissatisfied with the said order in that case there is Special Relief Act befor Municipal Tribunal and that shall be decided by the Tribunal and if anyone is dissatisfied by the Tribunal order he may file appeal against the Appellate Tribunal but complainant has failed to produce any paper to show that he adopted such legal step but anyhow from the complainant’s own version.  It is clear that complainant filed appeal after appeal, suit after suit got result but all those papers are not produced and when complainant got result from the Small Causes Court and also from other authority what prove that his grievances are disposed of then the disposed of matter cannot be re-agitated before this Forum and moreover after hearing the argument of the Ld. Lawyer and considering KMC Act and Regulations we are convinced to hold that complainant did not chose the proper forum but he had his scope to appear before the Municipal Tribunal and Municipal Appellate Authority what is working under KMC Regulations and fact remains that fee and tax was assessed by the Corporation and Municipal tax or fee is a levy made by the Authority for general purposes and it cannot be regarded as payment for particular and special service and in view of the provision of the C.P. Act the particular word ‘consideration’ is taken into consideration in the present case in that case it can safely be said that the payment by direct and indirect taxes paid by the Public does not constitute “consideration” paid by hiring the services rendered by Municipal or Corporation or etc. and it is also found that payment of house tax by the owner to Municipality/Panchayat etc. cannot be construed at consideration for the service of providing roads, water, drainage facility etc. and in view of the above findings we have relied upon the ruling reported in 1992 – (1) – CPJ – 64 and also in 1992 – (1) – CPR – 495 (Karnataka) and after citing the said ruling and also the present facts and circumstances we are convinced to hold that regarding payment of taxes made by the owner of the House cannot claim himself as a consumer of the Municipality but he is legally bound to pay it and if there is any dispute regarding assessment of taxes for that reason the respective assessee shall have to appear before the Hearing Officer i.e. Tribunal of Municipality and if he dissatisfied he may appeal before Municipal Tribunal or may appear before Civil Court for decision but Forum has no jurisdiction in view of the fact the present complainant is not a consumer of the KMC in true sense. 

          In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost against the OPs.

Dictated & Corrected

          by me