Kerala

Idukki

CC/192/2018

Bindhu Sulochanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Deputty takasildar - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Shiji Joseph

28 Jun 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 23.102018

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 28^th day of June, 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL. P MEMBER

CC NO.192/2018

Between

Complainant : Bindu, W/o. Sulochanan,

Kannamkunnel House,

Odamedu, Periyar,

Idukki.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Deputy Tahsildar,

Revenue Recovery,

Peermedu Taluk,

Peermedu, Idukki.

2. The Village Officer,

Periyar Village,

Periyar, Idukki.

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Case of the complainant is that :

 

The complainant's husband has a motor accident in the year 2004 and in that accident, Rs.2,12,843/- was awarded against him by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Thodupuzha. On 30.7.2018, the 2^nd opposite party has issued a notice demanding Rs.2,12,843/- with interest in the name of the husband of the complainant for recovering the same through Revenue Recovery Proceedings. As per the notice, the opposite party is threatening the complainant to attach the properties of the complainant which the opposite parties has no right. Alleging deficiency in service in the act of opposite parties to attach the property of the complainant, for the liability of her husband, complainant filed this petition, seeking reliefs such as to direct the opposite parties to withdraw the proceedings against the complainant as per the Revenue Recovery notice dated 21.7.2018, further direct the opposite parties to pay cost and compensation.

(cont....2)

- 2 -

Upon notice, opposite parties entered appearance and filed reply version contending that, according to the Revenue Recovery certificate issued by the District Collector, Idukki, through Tahsildar, Peerumade, opposite parties initiated Revenue Recovery Proceedings against the husband of the complainant. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are the authorised offices under Section 73 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. 1968. Consequent for the receipt of Form 25 as per Section 69 (2) of the above said act, the 1^st opposite party issued Form I as per Section 7 and Form 10 as per Section 37 of Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Accordingly the 2^nd opposite party served the demand notice to the defaulter.

 

Opposite parties further contended that, the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this matter as per Section 73 of the Revenue Recovery Act 1968. The steps initiated by the opposite parties are perfectly legal and no deficiency in service can be claimed. The RR proceedings initiated against the defaulter is only the serving of Section 7 and 34 notices and no threatening procedures have been initiated against the complainant.

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of documents such as copy of tax receipt and demand notice issued by the 2^nd opposite party. These documents are marked as Ext.P1 and P2 respectively.

 

Heard both sides.

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The POINT :- We have heard the counsel for both sides and have gone through the evidence on record. On perusing the documents, it is seen that opposite parties 1 and 2 initiated Revenue Recovery proceedings as per the direction of District Collector, Idukki. The notices issued to the complainant for recovering an amount of Rs.2,12,843/- awarded by the MACT, Thodupuzha against one Sulochanan, the husband of the complainant. Complainant is claiming that, the opposite parties 1 and 2 having no authority to attach the complainant's property for the liability of her husband, since the property is owned by the complainant alone as per

(cont....3)

- 3 -

Ext.P1 tax receipt. On verification of documents, Forum find that the opposite parties 1 and 2 are acted as per the direction of this Superior authority and it is a legalised proceedings and hence no deficiency in service can be alleged against them. Moreover, it is seen that, the matter is pending before the MACT, Thodupuzha as execution proceedings and the complainant can challenge the act of the opposite parties in the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, or its upper Forum. Moreover, as pointed out by the opposite parties in their reply version, the Forum is barred from entertaining such matter as per Section 73 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act 1968.

 

Hence under the above discussed circumstance, the Forum is of a considered view that, there is no merit in this complaint and hence the complaint dismissed. No cost ordered.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of June, 2019

 

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL. P., MEMBER

 

 

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - copy of tax receipt.

Ext.P2 - demand notice issued by the 2^nd opposite party.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT