DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. MUKESH KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner') against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in Appeal No.A -443/2003 decided in favour of Mukesh Kumar Jain, Respondent herein who was the original complainant before the District Forum.

(2.) The facts of the case are that Respondent was declared successful in a draw of lots held by the Petitioner in 1991 in respect of 90 Sq.Mtr. plots in Rohini to which he had applied in response to a Scheme advertised by the Petitioner. However, allotment of the plots was stayed as per an order of the Delhi High Court. Respondent came to know that a 60 Sq.Mtr. plot was allotted to him in 1995 when a property dealer contacted him for sale of this plot. Respondent, thereafter, wrote several letters to the Petitioner and also personally met the officials therein but he did not get any satisfactory response. Respondent, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that Petitioner be directed to issue him the allotment letter and hand over the possession of the plot allotted to him at the price prevailing in 1991 i.e. at the time of successful draw of the plot in his favour. Petitioner in response, while confirming that the Respondent was declared successful in the draw of lots in 1991 stated that on vacation of the stay order of the High Court, a demand -cum -allotment letter was sent to the Respondent on 14.10.1993 by registered post but since Respondent did not make the requisite payment and deposit the required documents by the stipulated date, the allotment was cancelled and thereafter the plot was allotted to the next eligible person in the list. The District Forum after hearing both parties allowed the complaint by observing that even if the Petitioner may have filed proof of dispatch of the allotment letter but since proof of delivery has not been filed and Respondent would not have approached the Petitioner several times for issue of allotment letter if indeed the letter had been received by him, directed that the Petitioner should restore the allotment of the plot to the Respondent at the price indicated in the allotment letter dated 16.10.1993 and on the same terms and conditions contained therein. If, however, the same plot is not available, some other plot of about the same size be allotted to Respondent. It was directed that the Petitioner comply with the order within one month of its receipt. Aggrieved by this order, Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which rejected the same by observing as under:

(3.) The State Commission thus concluded that the Petitioner had failed to prove the receipt of the demand -cum -allotment letter by the Respondent and therefore, cancellation of allotment was wrong and illegal. It, however, modified the order of the District Forum by giving the Petitioner liberty to put the name of the Respondent in the next draw of lots or allot an alternative plot at the price indicated in the letter dated 16.10.1993 on the same terms and conditions. Hence, the present revision petition.