Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

82/2014

Mr.M.Krishnan, S/o.Late.Mr.Muthusami, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Revenue Officer - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.M.Chidambaram

30 Dec 2016

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  11.04.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  30.12.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

FRIDAY  THE 30^th  DAY OF DECEMBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.82/2014

 

 

M.Krishnan,

S/o.Late Mr.Muthusami,

No.18, Amman Koil Street,

Kozhikadai Market,

Broadway, Chennai – 600 001.

                                                                                            ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

	The Revenue Officer, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.
	.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                   22.04.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.M.Chidambaram, A.Q.Choudhury

                                                                 R.Pavithra & T.M.Velu

 

Counsel for opposite party                       : Ex - parte

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY MEMBER  TMT.T.KALAIYARASI,  B.A.B.L.,       

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IS IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant submits that he is the owner of property bearing old Door.No.18/ New Door No.39, Amman Koil Street, Chennai – 600 001, purchased from N.K.Balaraman and his family members on 19.02.1992 under document No.122/1992 before the sub Registrar Office, Sowcarpet, since the date of the purchase, the Complainant is in possession and enjoyment of the above said property. After purchasing the above said property, the property assessment name was also changed in the Complainant’s name. Without seeing the  records, the Opposite Party office has issued bills the  name of Mr.Sree Ramulu. It is noted that some time i.e till 2009, the property Tax bills were issued in the name of the Complainant.  For correcting the name in the property tax bill and connected records, the Complainant has sent letter to the Opposite Party on many times. The Complainant has also personally requested the Tax Collector and Revenue Official of the Opposite Party to clear the mistake in the property Tax Bill. Whereas the Revenue section of Opposite Party neither sent any reply to the Complainant nor rectified the mistake in the property tax bill. The said act of the Opposite Party is one kind of negligence in their service. Therefore, the Complainant filed this Complaint to direct the Opposite Party to put the Complainant’s name in the owner’s column as M.Krishnan in the property assessment record  in Old Door No.18, new Door No.39, Area No.02, Zone No.5 Division No.25, ward No.056, Bill No.00055 of Amman Koil Strret, near Kozhi Market, Broadway, Chennai- 600 001 and also to direct the Opposite Party to pay compensation for  mental agony due to negligence   service of them   and also neglected to do his lawful duty even after knowing the facts and even after repeated notices, reminders and personal requests and with costs of the Complaint . 

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          Originally the land belongs to the Egavalli amman Koil for the property at old No.18, New No.39, Ammman Koil Street, Kozhi Market, Broadway, Chennai – 600 001, and it was allotted by the temple authorities and after getting NOC from temple authorities, corporation of Chennai assessed property tax for the superstructure only and now also stands in the name of Mr.Sriamalu in the revenue records. But the petitioner purchased the property from one Mr.Balaraman and applied for amendment of ownership, but failed to produce NOC from temple authorities. Hence the corporation of Chennai is unable to take further action on the application. The old Zone No.2, New Zone No.5 DN.No.25, New Dn.No.56, Bill No.0504 New Bill No.00055 stands in the name of Mr.Sriramulu and not in the name of the Complainant. The Complainant failed to produce the NOC from the temple authorities for amend the name in the revenue records, as has been instructed in the circular R.D.C.No. N.T.1136/2006 dated 24.03.2006. Originally the superstructure was assessed in the name of Shreeramulu as the land is owned and possessed by Egavalli Amman Koil under the control of Executive Officer, Hindu Religious & Endowment Board, Egavali Amman Koil, Chennai- 600 001. The facts being so, the Complainant has produced sale deed dated 19.02.1992 document No.122/1992 claiming that he had purchased superstructure with AC sheet roof measuring 300 sq.ft. from Thiru N.K.Balaraman S/o Kannan (2) Mrs.B.Dhanalakshmi  w/o K.Balaraman and (3) B.Balaji s/o K. Balaraman. Since there was no link between the said Shreeramulu in whose name in the assessment for the superstructure was stood. The corporation of Chennai asked the Complainant to produce the necessary documents to correlate the Revenue records and the title deeds of the original assessee Thiru Shreeramulu’s name including NOC from Executive Officer, Hindu Religious & Endowment Board. As the land owned and possessed by the temple, the Complainant has not produced any records till date. The Opposite Party has not received any communication from the Complainant and the Complainant had also not produced any documents as sought for by the Opposite Party, if the Complainant would have produced all the link documents together with NOC from the temple, the corporation of Chennai would have transferred the revenue records (i.e) property tax in the name of Complainant from the original owner Thiru Shreeramulu.  There was no mistake or negligence of service on the part of the Opposite Party. The Complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and consoled the real facts before the Hon’ble Forum. As per the Taxation Rules 12 (1) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act 1991, the Complainant ought to have filed an appeal before the commissioner, Corporation of Chennai if he was not satisfied with the assessment order of the corporation of Chennai. In the above said circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the above Complaint with cost.

          3. Though the Opposite Party filed written version they did not file proof affidavit and hence the Opposite Party was set Ex-parte for non filing of proof affidavit.

          4. The Complainant had filed his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A17 were marked on the side of the Complainant.

          5. The Complainant had also filed written argument and oral arguments of the Complainant were heard.

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

7. POINT NO :1

          The Complainant purchased the property bearing old Door.No.18, New Door No.39, Amman Koil Street, Chennai – 600 001 from N.K.Balaraman and his family members on 19.02.1992 under Ex.A1 sale deed registered at sub-registrar office, Sowarpet  Chennai. After purchasing the property, the Complainant enjoying the same and the Chennai Corporation, Revenue Department issued Ex.A3 order dated 27.04.92 that the property in respect of New No.18 Ammaan Koil Street, Chennai changed in the name of Mr.Thiru.M.K.Krishnan (Complainant) in the revenue records. The Complainant name also incorporated water and sewerage tax cum charges card in respect of the property purchased by him and the said card found in page 14 of the typed set of documents.

          8. The Complainant paid the property tax in Ex.A5 to Ex.A7 and Ex.A9 to Ex.A12 receipts in his name as assessed as  his property. The above referred documents prove that the Complainant is the owner of the property   purchased   under Ex.A1 sale deed and he had been regularly paying property tax and water tax.

          9. However, the Opposite Party issued Ex.A13 property tax demand and arrear card in the name of Shreeramulu. Further Ex.A16& Ex.A17 payment receipts for property tax issued in the name of Shreeramulu. The Complainant contended that he had purchased the property in the year 1992 and thereafter for several years property tax and water tax bill was issued in his name and all of a sudden the notice for the property tax   issued in the name of Shreeramulu is the negligent act on the part of the Opposite Party.

          10. Though the Opposite Party remained Ex-parte for non filing of proof affidavit he had filed written version. In the written version he had contended that only after obtaining NOC from the temple authorities, Corporation of Chennai assessed property tax for the superstructure only in the name of Shreeramulu, but the Complainant purchased from one Mr.Balaraman applied for ownership  and he  failed to produce NOC from temple authorities and hence the corporation of Chennai is unable to take further action on the application of the Complainant. The said Shreeramulu is the Complainant’s vendor’s vendor.

          11. The Ex.A2 order dated 27.04.92 issued by the Revenue Department Corporation of Chennai stated that the property purchased by the Complainant have been changed in the name of the Thiru.M.Krishnan(Complainant). Further, subsequent documents property tax payment receipts also issued till 2002 in the name of the Complainant and water tax bill Ex.A15 issued in the name of Complainant in the year 2012. Therefore, the above documents clearly establishes that the Chennai Corporation have already effected change in the name of the Complainant in respect of the property purchased by him under Ex.A1 sale deed. Therefore without looking into the Ex.A2 order, the Opposite Party issued Ex.A13 notice and Ex.A16 & Ex.17 bills issued in the name of one Mr. Shreeramulu  clearly establishes that the Opposite Party committed mistake on their part and hence, it is held that the Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service to the Complainant.

 

12. POINT NO:2

          Since the Opposite Party issued Ex.A13, Ex.A16,        & Ex.A17 in the name of one Shreeramulu instead of the Complainant name Mr.M.Krishnan, it would be appropriate to direct the Opposite Party to incorporate the Complainant name in the property assessment record in respect of the property of the Complainant old Door.No.18, New Door No.39, Amman Koil Street, Chennai – 600 001 in future in the Revenue Records of the Opposite Party. Even after the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to change the name in the records, the Opposite Party continued to issue Ex.A16 & Ex.A17 in the name  Thiru. Shreeramulu  in respect of old Door.No.18, New Door No.39, Amman Koil Street, Chennai – 600 001 caused mental agony to the Complainant is accepted and therefore it would be appropriate to order the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony  besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is ordered to maintain the property assessment record in the name of M.Krishnan (Complainant) in respect of the property old Door.No.18, New Door No.39, Amman Koil Street, Chennai – 600 001 and the Opposite Party is also ordered to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.   

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

 

 

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 30^th   day of December 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 19.02.1992                   Sale Deed in the name of Complainant

Ex.A2 dated 27.04.1992                   Opposite Party’s order

Ex.A3 dated NIL                     Property Tax Assessment Book

Ex.A4 dated 10.04.1995                   Opposite Party’s letter to the Complainant

Ex.A5 dated 30.05.1996                   Property Tax Payment Receipt

Ex.A6 dated 20.03.1997                   Property Tax Payment Receipt

Ex.A7 dated 09.10.1998                   Property Tax Payment Receipt

Ex.A8 dated 01.03.1999                   Opposite Party Notice

Ex.A9 dated 22.05.1999                   Property Tax Payment Receipt

Ex.A10 dated 16.02.2000                 Property Tax Payment Receipt

Ex.A11 dated 09.01.2001                 Property Tax Payment Receipt

Ex.A12 dated 13.11.2002                 Property Tax Payment Receipt

Ex.A13 dated 30.11.2003                 Notice was issued in the name of Mr.Sri Ramulu

Ex.A14 dated 03.12.2010                 Complainant’s representation

 

Ex.A15 dated 10.09.2012                 Water Tax Bill

Ex.A16 dated 20.11.2012                 Property Tax issued in the name of Sri Ramulu

Ex.A17 dated 03.04.2013       Property tax issued in the name of Sri Ramulu

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

                                      ……..NIL…….

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT