Sri.G.V.Balasubramanya,<br /> Member<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant purchased a site bearing No.3294, Datttagalli 3rd stage, Mysore from one Shri.M.B.Shivashankar under a registered sale deed dated 15.7.2006. The said site had been allotted to the complainant’s vendor by the opposite party on 6.6.1994. However, the opposite party had executed the sale deed in favour of said Shri.M.B.Shivashankar on 5.1.2002 and registered the same on 3.2.2002. <br /> <br /> 2. The complainant since the date of registration has been in possession and enjoyment of the site. However, when she applied for change of khata on 25.8.2006 the opposite party first asked her to remit Rs.750/- and then gave an endorsement on 10.11.2006 to pay taxes for the years 98-99 to 2002-03. The complainant has filed this complaint against such illegal demand made by the opposite party. According to her when the opposite party executed the sale deed in favour of her vendor in 2002, he should have collected the outstanding taxes. After having conveyed the site free from any encumbrances to her vendor, the opposite party is estopped from raising any fresh demand for taxes. The complainant says that she has paid all the taxes subsequent to her purchase. She has prayed that the opposite party be directed to change the khata without insisting for the arrears of taxes. She has, also, prayed for damages of Rs.25,000/- for the mental tension undergone by her.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party has filed the version admitting that the demand for payment of taxes for the period 1998-99 to 2002-03 has been made as a condition precedent to change of kahta. But he has justified such demand. It is, further, contended by the opposite party that the complainant is not a consumer. <br /> <br /> <br /> 4. From the above contentions, the following points arise for our consideration:<br /> I. Whether the complainant is a consumer?<br /> II. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the opposite party due to demand for arrears of tax for the period when she was not the owner of the site?<br /> III. What relief or order?<br /> <br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsels for the both sides and perused the documents. Our conclusions are as under:<br /> Point I: In the affirmative<br /> Point II: In the negative<br /> Point III: As per final order<br /> <br /> REASONS <br /> 6. Point No.I:- The complainant’s vendor was the original allottee of the site from the opposite party. Hence, he is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant being a purchaser from the original allottee becomes a “beneficiary” of the services rendered by the opposite party. The analogy is similar to the case of a recipient of a postal article who has been held to be a beneficiary of the services rendered by the Postal Department. Hence, we have no hesitation in answering the point in the affirmative. <br /> <br /> 7. Point No. II:- The opposite party has produced the entire office file pertaining to the site in question. The opposite party has executed the registered sale deed in favour the complainant’s vendor Shri.M.B.Shivashankara Murthy on 5.1.2002. The sale deed indeed contains a clause that the site is being conveyed to the purchaser free from all encumbrances, tax arrears, etc., The question is does such a clause has the effect of disentitling the opposite party, a statutory authority, from claiming such arrears of tax in future? The answer is obviously ‘No’. The duty to pay unpaid tax - if not collected by the authority by oversight – remains for ever. The complainant has not brought to our attention any provision of Law which creates an estoppel or exemption from payment of tax if not collected by the authority by oversight. Obviously, the complainant has not exercised prudence by not demanding tax receipts from her vendor before completing purchase. Section 55(1)(g) of the Transfer of Property Act makes it clear that the responsibility to tax up to the date of sale is on the seller. The complainant instead of taking up the matter with her vendor has chosen to file this complaint. The opposite party is perfectly justified in refusing to change the khata until the arrears of taxes are paid. The complainant has only two choices. Either she has to pay it herself and recover it from her vendor or request/cajole her vendor to pay it. There is no third alternative. Simply because some official in the office of the opposite party has committed an error by executing the sale deed without verifying whether taxes had been paid up to date or not, the complainant can not escape the liability. In view of the above, we answer the point in the negative.<br /> <br /> 8. There is no doubt that the official responsible for collection of taxes and / or execution of sale deed have been callous. But for such negligence this complaint would not have filed at all. Hence, they must pay for their negligence. We propose to impose upon the officials responsible for execution of sale deed the interest which otherwise the complainant may have to pay on the arrears of taxes. Hence, the opposite party may initiate enquiry to find out the person responsible and collect from them the interest component, if any, on the arrears of tax. This obviously means that the complainant is liable to pay only the arrears of tax. With these observations we proceed to pass the following order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> A. Complaint is dismissed.<br /> B. No costs.<br /> C. Return the original file to the learned counsel for the Opposite party.<br /> D. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />