BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 28th day of February, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.198/2008

Between

Complainant : M.K. Thankappan

Malamundayil House,

Vimala city Kara,

Konnathady Village,

Vellathooval P.O.

And

Opposite Party : Village Officer,

Konnathady Village Office,

Konnathady P.O,

Idukki.

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Complainant is the absolute owner and in possession of 92 cents of land in Thandapper No.5712 of Konnathady village. He was regularly paying the land tax of the property up to 26.4.2006.When the complainant approached the opposite party for paying the land tax of the said property for the year 2006-2007 the opposite party told that "one Chinnamma can only remit the tax of the said property" The said Chinnamma is no way related to this property and the complainant is not aware of the said Chinnamma. So the petitioner sent a complaint to the Tahsildar, Udumbanchola describing the matters. Then another complaint was given to District collector. As per the direction of the Tahsildar, the petitioner sent money order for Rs.61 to the opposite party on 4.5.2007 for paying tax including the amount for getting the receipt in registered post. But the opposite party  returned the money order. The opposite party is not willing to receive the tax of the petitioner's property  without any reason. Hence this petition is filed for directing the opposite party for receiving the tax of the  the property and also for compensation.

2. Notice was duly served to the opposite party. But the opposite party was absent. Hence called ex-parte.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4 The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and exhibits P1 to P6 marked.

5 The POINT:-  The complainant is the absolute owner and in possession of 92 cents of land  in Konnathady village  as Thandapper No.5712 The opposite party is not willing to receive the land tax of the property of the complainant . Complainant is examined as PW1. As per pw1, the land tax was paying in every year, Ext.P1 is the copy of the tax receipt issued from Konnathady Village office for the period 2004-2005 dated 21.4.2004. But when the complainant approached the opposite party  for paying the tax for the period 2006-2007, the opposite party is not willing to  receive the same. They told that, "one Chinnamma can only pay the tax of the property". Petitioner filed a complaint to the Tahsildar  about this. Copy of the same is marked as Ext.P2. The reply letter issued from the Tahsildar allowing the  petitioner to pay the tax through money order is marked as Ext.P3. So the complainant sent Rs.61/- by money order in which Rs.39/- for the tax and Rs.22/- for getting receipt by registered post. Copy of the same is Ext.P4. But the opposite party returned the same stating that the amount was not sufficient and the person who send the money order could not be identified, whether  he is the Thandapper  holder. Copy of the same is Ext.P4. Copy of the pattayam of the complaint is Ext.P6, which is 2 acres and 85 cents of land, in survey no.1/1 of Konnathady village  in the name of the complaint. The complainant paid the tax up to 2004-2005  in his name. But after that, it is seen that one Chinnamma's name also written in the name after complainant's name in the tax receipt of period 2005 to 2006. Copy of the same is produced by the complainant. After that the opposite party never received the tax of the complainant's property. But it is seen from EXt.P6 copy of the pattayam, Complainant is the Owner of 2.85 cents of landed property in survey No.1/1 of Konnthady village. Again it was partitioned and now the complainant is the absolute owner of 38.43 ares of property in Konnathady village as Thandapper No.5712. The complainant's property is no way related to Chinnamma and the complainant is also not aware of the said Chinnamma. That is not challenged by the opposite party. Ext.P3 is the letter from the Tahsildar allowing to pay the tax of the complainant's property even through money order. But opposite party delebrately returned the money order without receiving the same. It is a gross deficiency in the part of opposite party. So we think it is proper to direct the opposite party to receive the tax of the property of the complainant at the earliest and also to conduct mutation in the property if it is not done in favour of the complainant.

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to conduct mutation in complainant's property within one month if it is not done in favour of   the complainant. The opposite party is also directed to receive the tax of the complainant's property which is about 38.43 ares of land in Thandapper No.5712 in survey No.1/1 of Konnathady village when the complainant approaches the opposite party and pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of this petition to the complainant within one month of the receipt of this order.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of February, 2009.

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - M.K. Thankappan

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Copy of the tax receipt dated 21/04/2004

Ext.P2 - Copy of complaint to the Tahsildar dated 11/05/2007

Ext.P3 - Reply letter from the Tahsildar

Ext.P4 - Copy of the moey order form and receipt.

Ext.P5 - Money order communication receipt

Ext.P6 - Copy of the pattayam

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil