H.P.GUPTA vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the complainant and his wife Shanti Gupta are the joint owners of property bearing H. No. C-32, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi. In 1990 a bill of Rs. 2,960/- regarding property tax for 1990-91 was raised by respondent No. 2 against them which was paid on 13th November, 1990. In 1991 similarly, a bill was raised for 1991-92 of Rs. 2,500/-which was paid by them on 25th November, 1991.

NOTICE was received in August, 1992 by complainant No. 1 from respondent No. 2 that an amount of Rs. l,72,771/- on account of House Tax upto 31st March, 1992 was in arrears against him. He wrote a letter dated 20.9.92 to Asstt. Assessor & Collector of respondent No. 1 in reply to the notice making an enquiry as to how the amount was due to him. No letter was received in reply from him. Thereafter complainant No. 1 received a bill dated 30th September, 1992 for the year 1992-93, wherein an amount of Rs. 1,72,771/- was shown as arrears upto 31st March, 1992 and an amount of Rs. 12,758/- was shown as property tax for the year 1992-93. Again, he wrote a letter dated 8th October, 1992 to respondent No. 2 seeking clarifications about the arrears. No reply to that letter was received by him. Thereafter, it is alleged, respondent No. 1 got frozen the account of both the complainants in the New Bank of India, Masjid Moth Branch. It is further alleged that on account of that they suffered in reputation in society and from mental tension. Consequently, they have claimed for damages against the Municipal Committee. A notice of the complainant was issued to the respondents for 6.11.92. No one appeared on behalf of M.C.D. on that date. However, Sh. A.K. Gupta, Accountant appeared for New Bank of India. The M.C.D. was proceeded against ex-parte and the complainant was directed to send intimation to the M.C.D. that they had been proceeded against ex-parte and that the case was adjourned to 20th November, 1992 for arguments, on the application of stay. On 20th November, 1992 no one appeared on behalf of the respondents and the case was adjourned to 23rd November, 1992. On23rd November, 1992 again no one appeared on behalf of the respondents. The complainant on that day filed a postal despatch receipt and a letter dated 6.12.92 addressed to Municipal Committee and Dy. Collector in pursuance of our order dated 6th November, 1992. The letter, it is stated was got typed on6th November, 1992 but through oversight 6.12.92 was typed thereon instead of 6th November, 1992. It appears the contention of the complainant is correct. However, no one appeared on behalf of the Municipal Committee to contest the case.

It is evident from the copies of the receipts filed by the complainants on the record that he had duly paid property tax for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92. After complainant No. 1 received notice dated 11.8.92 for the payment of arrears for the period ending 31.3.92 he made enquiry from the respondent as to how the arrears had been claimed by M.C.D. from them. However, he did not receive any reply. Again, he wrote another letter after the receipt of the bill relating to 1992-93 to the same effect to the M.C.D. Inspite of his letters the M.C.D. without investigating the matter, got the account of the complainant in the New Bank of India frozen. This in our view could not be done by them. The complainant after filing of the complaint again approached respondent No. 2 and on his representation the accounts were released. The respondent got the accounts of the complainant frozen without any justification. The complainants enjoy high status in society. It is natural that persons of status suffer mental agony and feel humiliated in society, if for no fault their accounts in a bank are forzen. Respondent No. 2 therefore, liable to pay damages to the complainants. Respondent No. 1 froze the accounts at the instance of respondent No. 2, therefore, respondent No. 3 is not liable to pay any damages to them.

AFTER taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the complainants are entitled to Rs. 5,000/- as damages. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the complaint with costs and direct respondent No. land 2 to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainants within a period of 3 months, failing which actions hall be taken against them under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. In case they fail to pay the said amount within 3 months, they shall further be liable to pay interest on that amount @ 12% P.A. from the date of the order till the date of payment. Costs, Rs. 1,000/-. Complaint allowed with costs.