Ramnath Upadhya v. Greater Hyderbad Muncipal Corporation,Rep by its Special Office and Commissioner

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: RANGA REDDY CC 134/2015 Between: Ramnath Upadhya, S/o Sri Motilal Upadhya, Aged 79 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.13-10-107/NR, New Gaddiannaram, P & T Colony Post Office, Ranga Reddy District. ... Complainant

1. The Special Officer & Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad.

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle No.3, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad 500 074. Opposite Parties Complainant : Party in Person Counsel for Opposite Parties : Sri P.H.Pannaga Sai, Advocate PRESENT: Sri R.GOPALA KRISHNA MURTHY, PRESIDENT Smt I.L.PRASANTHI, LADY MEMBER (PER HONBLE Smt I.L.PRASANTHI, LADY MEMBER ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND SIXTEEN Order:

1. The complaint is filed U/Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct Opposite Parties (i) to repay the excess property tax collected which is Rs.1,29,880/- (ii) to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards interest collected and costs and to pass any other order deemed fit.

2. The main averments as per the complaint are: The Opposite Parties are the officers of Municipal Corporation which is a service provider to the complainant who as a consumer pays property tax. Besides several other functions, Opposite Parties have to assess and levy property tax based on the location, usage, annual rental value, measurements etc which is done by survey conducted by their staff. Complainant acquired house site of 580 sq.yds on 22.03.1978 to which a door No.10-107 was assigned. The ground floor was used for manufacturing chuduva in a cottage industry for over 3 decades for the livelihood of complainants family. Complainant became old and wanted to settle the property between his sons and hence executed a settlement deed in favour of his son Praven Upadhya on 12.04.2010 for half of the property consisting of 288 sq.yds. His son constructed new building in this area and shifted the entire chuduva manufacturing unit to its ground floor which was taxed as commercial area by Opposite Parties. The old residential house ground floor used earlier for commercial purpose was partly demolished for the movement of vehicles after shifting of the commercial activity to the ground floor of new building. The partly demolished rear side building ground floor and first floor was being used for residential purpose as complainants both sons were also married. This old property had two property tax assessment numbers and knowing fully well that the same is converted into residential area from 2010-2011, Opposite Parties were still collecting commercial taxes for one property. Thus there are four assessments, two for the complainant and two for the complainants son. Only the ground floor of complainants son is commercial while all three are residential. Opposite Parties continued to levy commercial tax to the ground floor used for residential area from 2010-2011. The old commercial area after demolition and now put to residential usage measured 870 sft for which property tax works out to be Rs.900/- p.a. from 2010-2011. But the said area is continued to be shown as commercial with plinth area of 1242 sft. The photographs of the same were submitted to Opposite Parties requesting them to issue revised notice from 2010-2011. However they continued to adopt old classification, issued notices and threatened to lock the commercial shop to cause loss which amounts to deficiency of service. The excess claim per annum at Rs.47,120/- per year works out to Rs.2,35,600/- for five years and penal interest was also collected on the same and hence the complaint.

3. Opposite Parties filed their written version and contended that the present complaint was filed on false and baseless grounds concealing material facts. It was submitted that complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act as payment of tax for development and maintenance to the Municipal Corporation cannot be called as consideration and any dispute regarding them has to be decided by the Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. Complainant failed to issue notice to the Opposite Parties before filing the present complaint which is mandatory U/Sec.685 of HMC Act. Complainant is wilful defaulter in paying the property tax pertaining to his property. As per the official records, property bearing No.13-10-107/NR is under commercial use and the owner Mr.Mothilal Ramnath Upadhya (complainant) submitted a representation in February 2015 that his property is under residential use and applied for change of tax during February 2015 vide letter dated 20.02.2015. The property tax for the Financial Year 2015- 2016 will be reduced after verifying the property considering the usage as residential. The subject demand notice was issued by Opposite Parties up to the year 2014-2015 and complainant never informed the change of usage from commercial to residential. Opposite Parties did not misclassify residential area as commercial after shifting of commercial activities from 2010-2011 to the front side building. No exorbitant property tax was levied and no specific request through web based complaint cell was neglected and hence there was no deficiency of service on part of Opposite Parties. It is false to say that knowing fully well that the property was converted into residential area since 2010- 2011 it was being taxed as commercial area. It was also denied that the property measured 870 sft and tax was levied for a plinth area of 1242 sft adopting old classification. As the present complaint is filed only to avoid payment of property tax and to extract money from Opposite Parties, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

4. Complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A12. Inspite of giving much opportunity, Opposite Parties did not file their evidence affidavit and no documents were marked on their side. Counsel for complainant filed written arguments.

5. The main points for consideration in this case are:

1) Whether complainant is a consumer U/Sec.2(d) of C.P.Act?

2) Whether Opposite Parties are liable for collecting property tax at exorbitant rates from the complainant?

3) Whether Opposite Parties are liable for deficiency of service?

4) To what relief?

6. Point No.1: It is the contention of Opposite Parties that the complainant is not a consumer U/Sec.2(d) of C.P.Act as payment of taxes for development cannot be taken as consideration. However Consumer Protection Act is meant for the protection of consumer and is a beneficiary piece of legislation. It has to be read and interpreted in favour of the consumer for whose benefit it has been brought into existence. In a catena of decisions, Supreme Court and National Commission have held that public authorities who extend service come under the definition of service providers and are answerable under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence we are of the opinion that complainant comes well within the definition of consumer as defined U/Sec.2(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act.

7. Point No.2 & 3: Inspite of giving opportunity, Opposite Parties did not file any evidence affidavit and failed to adduce evidence in support of their case. Hence we are constrained to rely upon the documents filed by the complainant as Exs.A1 to A12. Ex.A1 is the Gift Settlement Deed dated 12.04.2010 which shows that complainant gifted part of the house, bearing municipal No.10-107 admeasuring 288.33 sq.yds in favour of his son Pradeep and Ex.A2 is the building permission for the said gifted property. Ex.A4 is the demand notice for the year 2014-2015 issued for complainants house with door No.13-10-107/NR in which huge arrears are shown to the tune of Rs.1,34,370/- and the interest part also. Ex.A5 is the payment of property tax pertaining to complainants property. Ex.A6 and A7 pertain to complainants sons property which have no relevance to the present case. Ex.A8 is the letter dated 18.02.2015 in which complainant appealed against property tax levied, requested for change of commercial purpose to residential purpose and to revise the tax from the year 2010-2011. The references given in the said letter show only property tax number in the name of complainant, the permission for building, the gift deed and his grievance No.2015-02-W142578, dated 16.02.2015. Hence clearly complainant made his first request/grievance only on 16.02.2015 through the website of GHMC and Ex.A8 is written two days after that is on 18.02.2015. Opposite Parties have rightly submitted that complainant applied for change of property tax for residential use only in the month of February 2015 and the disputed demand notice was upto the year 2014-2015. Hence the lapse is on part of complainant who immediately after gifting part of the property to his son, should have applied for necessary changes reducing plinth area from 1242 to 870. He failed to do so and also failed to change category of usage from commercial to residential. Not having taken the right step at the right time is the complainants major lapse. Having waited for 4 years it is only when the property tax was demanded at commercial rate for the entire property that complainant woke up. He cannot blame the Opposite Parties in this regard. Under the citizens charter filed as Ex.A3 at serial No.17 and 18, complainant should have made an application in the prescribed format with all the documents required to be submitted as shown in Ex.A3 and Opposite Parties have to work on it and do the needful within 30 days. Complainant never made such application and hence he cannot accuse Opposite Parties of any lapse or foul play in this regard whatsoever. Hence we are of the conclusive opinion that Opposite Parties did not levy any exorbitant tax as the fact of conversion of commercial area into residential and the reduction in the plinth area was not brought to their notice by the complainant himself. Hence we do not find any deficiency in service on part of Opposite Parties. We answer both these points against the complainant.

8. Point No.4: In view of our findings on point No.2 and 3, we are of the opinion that complainant is not entitled to claim any relief whatsoever.

9. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs. Dictated to the Steno-typist, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 7th day of November, 2016. Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT MEMBER APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED For Complainant For Opposite Parties Affidavit filed Nil EXHIBITS MARKED For Complainant Ex.A1 Copy of Gift Settlement Deed dt.12.04.2010 Ex.A2 Copy of Proceedings dt.03.07.2010 Ex.A3 Copy of Citizens Charter Ex.A4 Copy of Property Tax Demand Bill 2014-2015 Ex.A5 Copy of Notice of Demand dt.17.01.2015 Ex.A6 Copy of Property Tax Demand Bill dt.09.11.2013 Ex.A7 Copy of Notice of Demand dt.17.01.2015 Ex.A8 Copy of Letter dt.18.02.2015 Ex.A9 Copy of Property Tax Receipt Ex.A10 Copy of Property Tax Dues Details 2014-15 Ex.A11 Copy of Photos Ex.A12 Copy of Order in F.A.No.177/2007 against C.D.No.1075/2005 Exhibits marked for the Opposite Parties Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT MEMBER