Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/73/2011

B. Chinna Chennaiah S/o Buddaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Municipal Commissioner, Mahabubnagar Municipality. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri K. Mohan,

22 Mar 2012

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Thursday, the 22^nd day of March, 2012 

                                                    Present:- Sri P. Sridhara Rao, B.Sc., LL.B., President

         Sri A. Veerupakshi, B.A., LL.B., Member     

       Smt. D. Nirmala, B.Com., LL.B.,Member

C.C.NO. 73  Of   2011

Between:-

B. Chinna Chennaiah S/o Buddaiah, age: 62 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o H.No.1-7-238/12, Kosgi Road, Mahabubnagar.  

       … Complainant

And

The Municipal Commissioner, Mahabubnagar Municipality.

      … Opposite Party

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 15-3-2012 in the presence of Sri K. Mohan, Advocate, Mahabubnagar on behalf of the complainant and Sri G. Sripada Rao, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite party and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum made the following:   

O R D E R

          (Smt. D. Nirmala, Member)

1.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite party to reduce the wrong assessed tax of the complainant house bearing  No.1-7-238/12 since 2001 to 2011, to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and costs of the complaint. 

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that:- The complainant is having house bearing No.1-7-238/12 near Kosgi road, T.D. Gutta, Mahabubnagar municipality and the said house was constructed in the year 1979 in ward No.32 (old) ward No.34 (new). Since then the complainant is regularly paying the house and property tax upto the year 2000. The complainant further stated that last in the year 2000 the complainant paid tax of Rs.140/- total the tax assessment year. Thereafter in the year 2001 the opposite party issued demand notice of property tax to the complainant and in that notice the opposite party assessed the excess property tax on the house of the complainant. Thereupon, the complainant approached the opposite party office and filed the application and got the written document on 27-5-2010. In this document clearly mentioned how to assessed the property tax of houses and also the opposite party issued one pamphlet it is clearly shows with examples for the assessment of property tax. The complainant further stated that as per the documents issued by the opposite party the complainant property tax  comes of Rs.282/- only RCC + Rs.62/- kavela total Rs.344/- for one year property tax. As per the opposite party assessment of tax is Rs.970/- for the year. There is a difference between the both calculation of Rs.626/-. While the matter stood thus, on 8-10-2010 again the opposite party issued demand notice to the complainant to pay the tax of Rs.19,041/-.  After receipt of the said notice the complainant again approached the opposite party office to reduce the excess tax of Rs.626/-. The complainant further stated that he is a senior citizen since 10 years he is struggling with the opposite party by wandering their office regarding to reduce the tax.  But the opposite party has not given any response to the complainant. Thereupon, on 14-1-2011 the complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite party and the same was received by the opposite party on 18-1-2011. The opposite party neither give any reply nor reduce the tax amount till today. Furthermore, the complainant also filed applications under Right to Information Act to furnish the information for how to assess the tax on the complainant house and on what basis the opposite party office was assessing the tax and imposed the same. The opposite party is not furnished the particulars of assessment of the tax of the house of the complainant.  Such acts and the attitudes of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service.  Hence the present complaint is filed for the above said relief.      

3. The opposite party filed counter denying the averments made in the complaint and stated that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Forum as per A.P. Municipality Act, as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party. The opposite party further stated that to avoid the payment of property tax the complainant filed this complaint before this Forum. The opposite party further stated that as per the Municipality Act the complainant has to pay the property tax to the municipality and he can lodge a complaint for the grievance before competent forum but not before this Consumer Forum. Furthermore the opposite party assessed the property tax of the complaint and other houses in his limits as per the Government in their G.O.Ms.No.154,MA Dt.8-4-2002 was revised the property tax from the year 2001-2002 with effect from  1-4-2002 to all the existing houses in the municipal jurisdiction. As such the complainant House No.1-7-238/12 is also revised  the property tax w.e.f. 01-4-2002 and property tax refixed for Rs.898+78 for library cess total i.e., Rs.976/- per annum and further more the library cess levied from the parties will pay to Zilla Grandalaya Samithies Mahabubnagar by this Muncipality. The complainant against said increase never approach the municipality for ratification of tax, and not file any revision as per the A.P. Munciapity Act. The Government has given several opportunity to the complaint by way of waive of interest on the arrears and current. But the complainant failed to utilize the same. The calculations of the property tax are made as per the norms of the government. Under the above said circumstances it is prayed to dismiss the complainant with costs.

4. Thereupon the complainant in support of his claim filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-13. On the other hand, the opposite party filed his affidavit evidence and only Exs.B-1 to B-3 got marked on behalf of opposite party. 

 5. (i) Whether the complainant is a consumer, if so the present complaint 

         filed against opposite party is maintainable or not ?

2. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite party in 

          rendering service to the complainant as alleged?

    (iii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for by him?         

    (iv)  To what effect? 

6. Point No.1:- It is the case of the complaint that he is having house bearing No.1-7-238/12 near Kosgi road, T.D. Gutta, Mahabubnagar Municipality, that in the year 2011 the opposite party issued demand notice of property tax by assessing excess property tax on his house.  When he approached the opposite party to reduce the tax they failed to do so. Hence he approached the Hon’ble Forum to reduce the wrong assessed tax on the house of the complainant since 2001 to 2011.  In support of his case the complainant filed Exs.A-1 to A-13. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party that the complainant is not a consumer, and that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as per the A.P. Municipalities Act.  Admittedly the complainant filed complaint against the opposite party to reduce the wrong assessed tax on the house of the complainant since 2001 to 2011. As such, as contended by the learned counsel for the opposite party we have to see whether the complainant will come under the purview of consumer as envisaged U/s 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act. On this aspect, it is relevant to quote the principles laid down in the decision reported in 1996 (2) CPR 173 of the Hon’ble National Commission (The Calcutta Municipal Corporation Vs. Dr. Apurba Kumar Basu & Another) wherein it is held by the Hon’ble National Commission that “There is no nexus between the tax and the services rendered by the Municipality and any complaint about levy and collection of such tax does not make the assessee a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986”.  According to averments of the complaint, affidavit evidence and the documents Exs.A-1 to A-13 the case of the complainant is that the opposite party levied excess property tax to his house from 2001 to 2011 and he approached the District Forum to reduce the same. In the light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned ruling, we have no hesitation to hold that the complaint filed by the complainant about levy and collection of the property tax does not make the complainant (assessee) as a consumer as defined U/s 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act.  As such, on a careful consideration of the entire material on record, for the reasons stated above and in view of the principles laid down in the above decision, we hold that the complainant is not a consumer and the present complaint filed against the opposite party is not maintainable before this Forum and accordingly liable to be dismissed. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the opposite party and against the complainant.  

7. Point Nos.2 and 3:- In view of the findings given on point No.1 that the complainant is not a consumer and the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum against the opposite party and the question of deficiency of service rendered by the opposite party does not arise and accordingly the complainant is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The point Nos.2 and 3 are answered accordingly.    

8. Point No.4:- In the result, the complaint is dismissed. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to the costs.  

        Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 22^nd day of March, 2012.    

 

                                                           I agree                                I agree  

 

 MEMBER                                      MEMBER                             PRESIDENT                       

  Appendix of evidence

      List of Witness examined

On behalf of Complainant:                             On behalf of Opposite Party:   

- Nil -                                                                      - Nil -                                       

List of documents marked:-

On behalf of Complainant:-    

Ex.A-1: Original Property Tax Demand Notice, dt.8.10.2010.

Ex.A-2: Copy of Property Tax Assessment procedure.

Ex.A-3: Copy of Tax Assessment.   

Ex.A-4: Office copy of Legal Notice, dt.14.1.2011.

Ex.A-5: Original Courier Receipt, dt.14.1.2011.

Ex.A-6: Original Courier Receipt, dt.14.1.2011.

Ex.A-7: Copy of Tax Calculation Memo.

Ex.A-8: Copy of Representation, dt.20.1.2005.

Ex.A-9: Copy of Representation, dt.14.12.2005.

Ex.A-10: Copy of Representation.

Ex.A-11: Copy of Representation, dt.7.12.2007.

Ex.A-12: Copy of Representation.

Ex.A-13: Copy of Order of A.P. Information Commission, dt.12.3.2010.

On behalf of OP.:                  

                        Ex.B-1: Copy of Statement showing the calculation sheet of Property Tax.  

Ex.B-2: True copy of abstract of Assessment Register.

Ex.B-3: Copy of Property Tax Assessment details.      

                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                   

 

                                                                        PRESIDENT                                                                                                   

Copy to:-

1. Sri K. Mohan, Advocate, Mahabubnagar on behalf of the complainant.

2. Sri G. Sripada Rao, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite party.