S.K. Singhal                                                                 ---   Appellant
Vs.
Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority           ---   Respondent

Before :
            Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President
            Mr. Y. Krishan, Member
            Hon'ble Mr. Justice b.S. Yadav, Member

B.S. Yadav, J. Member

       This is an appeal against the order dated 24th September, 1992 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow in case No.198/SC/91 by which the complaint filed by the present appellant was dismissed.

      The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the present appellant has filed a complaint before the State Commission alleging that an offer for allotment of a house in Patel Ngar was made in 1983 by the respondent, Ghaziabad Development Authority (for short GDA). The complainant had got registered his name for allotment of a house. He deposited Rs. 8,000/- as registration fee on 30th November, 1985. He was not successful in the lots drawn for that scheme. Later on an offer was made to him by the present respondent GDA for allotment of a house in Shastri Nagar against the same registration. This offer was accepted by the complainant and he deposited the additional amount of Rs. 8,000/- on 30th November, 1985 as was asked for. Vide letter dated 5th September, 1988 the complainant was informed that he was successful in the lots and house bearing No.SE-160 has been reserved for him. He was asked to deposite an additional amount of Rs.13,493/- which he deposited on 26th October, 1988.

      While accepting the offer for allotment of house in Shastri Nagar, the complainant had informed through the Manager, Vijaya Bank, Ghaziabad vide his letter dated 12th February, 1989 to transfer his deposit to the new scheme and he also informed about the change in address for further communication. however, as that letter was not addressed to the GDA no action appears to have been taken on it. A letter dated 5th September, 1988 was addressed to the complainant at his old address. According to this letter the complainant was asked to deposit Rs.13,493/- by 26th September, 1988. He was also asked to take possession of the house on any date after 26th September, 1988 but before 10th October, 1988 after paying the upto date amount with interest, if any and after completing necessary formalities.

      The complainant further averred that the letter dated 5th September, 1988 was returned undelivered to the respondent as it was addressed to him at the old address. But somehow he came to know about it. He collected that letter from the office of the respondent and met the Secretary of the respondent and explained the circumstances under which the payment could not be made by him by 26th September, 1988 and he made an application for extension of time for payment of the same. Time was extended and he deposited the amount of Rs.13,493/- on 26th October, 1988. On  12th February, 1989 the complainant wrote a letter to the respondentt under registered post again intimating about changes in the address. The postal receipt about the registration has been filed at Page 32 of the paper book. The respondent wrote another letter on 21st April, 1989 to the complainant. The relevant terms of which have been reproduced by the State Commission in its order. Those terms are as follows.

(a)   The complainant had not taken possession of said house even by this time.

(b)   The time for taking over possession of the house was extended upto 15-5-1989.

(c)   The complainant was also informed that all formalities may be completed, all amount due may be deposited and possession of the house be taken within the extended time.

(d)   That the allotment will be cancelled if the possession is not taken within the extended time.

      According to the complainant, this letter was also addressed by the respondent to his old address and therefore, he did not get it. here we may mention that in the grounds of revision, the complainant has mentioned that he had contacted the Secretary of the respondent on 26th October, 1988 and he was told that  the houses were not yet ready for possession and it might take another six months or so. Despite several written and verbal requests the respondent did not inform him anything. However when he visited the site, he came to know that the house in question had been handed over to some other person. The complainant therefore, filed a complaint before the State Commission praying that the respondent be directed to handover the possession of the said house SE 160 by a definite date or in the alternative the respondent be directed to compensate him for the loss of Rs.2/- lakhs being the amount in the appreciation of the market rate of the house in question. He also claimed Rs.29,493/- being the refund of amount deposited with the respondent along with interest @ 24 % p.a.

      The complaint was contested by the respondent. however, it is not clear from the order of the State Commission that what pleas were taken by the respondent, GDA.

      The State Commission held that the complainant committed default and therefore, he was not entitled to allotment of the house. The defaults found were :

(1)   Vide letter dated 5th September, 1988 the complainant was asked to deposit Rs.13,493/- by  26th September, 1988 but he deposited that amount on 26th October, 1988.

(2)   The complainant was asked to take possession of the house after 26th September, 1988 but before 10th October, 1988 but the complainant did not take possession of the house in terms of that letter.

      We are of the opinion that the above defaults of the complainant narrated by the State Commission would loose force from the fact that the amount of Rs.13,943/- was deposited by the complainant on the 26th October, 1988 and that deposit was accepted by the respondent. As noticed earlier, the respondent's contention is that the letter dated 5th September, 1988 was sent to him at his old address and that letter was returned back undelivered. When he came to know about it, he collected the same from the office of the respondent and got extension for the deposit of the money by filing an application.  As noticed above, there after the respondent wrote another letter dated 21st April, 1989 requesting the complainat to take possession of the house as time for taking possession of the house was extended upto 15-5-1989. Therefore, even if the complainant did not take possession in terms of the earlier letter dated 5th September, 1989, he did not lose his right of taking possession of the allotted house to which he could take within the extended period. The complainants case is that this letter by which time for taking possession of the house was extended was again addressed at his old address and he did not get it.

      We are not prepared to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the complainant was not interested in taking possession of the house. The complainant was making deposits as and when he was required to do so, when the scheme was changed and the last deposit was made by him only on 26th October, 1988. Therefore, there is no reason to belive that the complainant was not interested in taking possession of the house. The default lies with the respondent as the letters were not addressed to the complainant at his changed address which was duly intimated to the respondent by a letter sent under registered post long before the issue of the letter dated 21st April, 1989. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the State Commission was not right in holding that in the present case the default has been committed by the complainant.

      The next question that arises is that what relief can be granted to the complainant. The respondent cannot be directed to hand over the possession of the house allotted to the complainant as it has since been allotted to some other person. The complainant has not stated that any other house is lying vacant with the respondent GDA in Shastri Nagar scheme in which scheme that allotted house No.SE-160 is stituted. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled only to the award of compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Though the complainant has claimed Rs.2/- lakhs as compensation on the ground that he has suffered that loss due to the appreciation of market value of the house but we do not think it proper to grant that amount of compensation to the complainant. We think that the ends of the justice would be met if the complainant is awarded Rs.30,000/- as damages. We further uphold the order of the State Commission by which the respondent has been directed to refund the total amount deposited by the complainant along with interest @ 12 % p.a. with effect from the date of respective deposits till 30th September, 1992. The  State Commission has further ordered that if the above amount was not paid by 31st October, 1992 interest would have to be paid  @ 18 % p.a. on the total amount (amount deposited and interest upto 30th September, 1989) with effect from 1st november, 1992 till the date of actual payment. The complainant was further allowed Rs.2,000/- as costs of the present appeal. These directions of the State Commission are upheld. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The appellant will be entitled to the costs of the present appeal which we assess at Rs.1,000/-.