This revision petition has been filed by Delhi Development Authority with delay of 42 days. The condonation application gives the following explanation for delay:-
“2. That the petitioner’s Counsel sent the internet copy of the Ld State Commission order to the office of the petitioner on 29.10.2012. The Law officer (housing) after receiving the same asked the dealing hand to examine the order in case the same need to be challenged. The Law officer sent the file to the Dy Director there after the file was sent to the Director Housing and Commissioner.
3. The commissioner Housing recommended for the revision petition and the file was sent to the CLA on 12.11.2012.
4. The decision to file a revision petition was taken on 12.11.2012 by the authority. The case was entrusted to the panel Lawyer. The power of attorney was signed in favour of the Panel Lawyer after observing all the formalities and the file was sent to the panel Lawyer on 19.11.12. The panel Lawyer prepared the revision petition and after having the same signed from the concerned officials was filed.”
2. Clearly, there is an attempt to obfuscate the facts. There is no explanation of the time between 17.7.2012 when the impugned order was passed by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and 29.10.2012 when the petitioner’s counsel sent the internet copy. There is no explanation why neither the petitioner nor the counsel could access the concerned portal on the internet earlier than almost two and half months actually taken.
3. The petitioner has sought to rely on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Haryana Vs. Chander Mani 1996 (1) SCC 255 (SC). We deem it necessary to point out that in subsequent decisions the Apex Court has taken a much stricter view of delay by the State institutions, if it is not sufficiently explained. Thus, in Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and another, (2012) 3 SCC 563:-
“28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.”
Therefore, in our view the DDA cannot claim any special treatment, as claimed in the application for condonation of delay. However, considering the number of days of delay and in the interest of equity, we condone the delay and take up the revision petition for consideration on merits.
4. The matter has arisen out of a case of allotment of a flat to the complainant and its subsequent cancellation on the ground of non-payment of price. The District Forum held that—
“The OP has sent a demand-cum-allotment letter at the permanent address which of-course was not received by the complainant according to his version. Thereafter the OP has also sent a letter dtd. 23.7.2001 to show cause why the allotment should not be cancelled. This letter was also sent at the permanent address. The complainant has not filed any reply to the show cause notice. Obviously, the complainant is at fault. At this stage, it may be mentioned that the complainant has not come with clean hands in as much as in the complaint he has not mentioned that he was allotted a flat. The allotment of the flat was mentioned by the OP. Admittedly, the complainant has not deposited any instalment or amount in pursuance of the allotment letter.”
5. On the other hand, the State Commission arrived at a different finding and held—
“It will appear from the facts stated above as well as from the decision of the District Forum that the dispute arose due to change of address. It is not disputed by the DDA respondent that the communication of the complainant/appellant regarding change of address was duly received. The DDA however says that they sent the letter of allotment of flat on the old address because the same has been mentioned by the complainant/appellant in the subsequent affidavit filed by him. That may be a reason for sending the letter of allotment on the old address but the DDA should have realized that the change of address had already been communicated to them. In view of this so called discrepancy, it was necessary for the DDA to send the letter of allotment, at both the addresses in order to ensure that information of the same has been communicated to the appellant/complainant. The show cause notice was sent at the permanent (old) address and the same should also have been sent at his present addresses both the addresses in order to ensure information been given about the same to the complainant/appellant. The cavalier manner in which the DDA dealt with the situation and confined itself to sending information of allotment as well as subsequent show cause notice at the permanent (old) address given in the affidavit, shows, that they just wanted to fulfil superficial requirement, and did not entertain a sincere desire that these communications should be received by the complainant/appellant. It should also be noticed in this connection that DDA did not give any reply of the complainant/appellant/s letter dated 13.02.2007 seeking information about the allotment.”
6. We have perused the records carefully and heard Mrs. Girija Wadhwa, Advocate for the revision petitioner and Shri R.K. Patra, Advocate for the respondent/Complainant. The sole argument advanced by the counsel for DDA was that the relevant communication was sent to an address given by the Complainant himself and therefore, it is not a case of deficiency in service. She also argued that the State Commission should have considered this, instead of merely relying on the affidavit of the Complainant, which gave another address as his present residence.
7. We do not find any substance in this argument. The revision petition itself shows that it was the case of a physically handicapped applicant. He had already responded to the letter of allotment of 25.8.1995. The State Commission has observed that he had even written to the DDA on 13.2.2007 and the latter had failed to respond. We therefore, agree with the State Commission that it is a case of deficiency of service on the part of the revision petitioner.
8. The question is what would constitute a just and equitable award, in the facts and circumstances of the case. In our view, the award of the State Commission is grossly disproportionate to the nature of deficiency of service. Considering that there was no occasion for the complainant to pay any part of the price, it would be more appropriate to award adequate monitory compensation to the respondent/complainant, instead of burdening the revision petitioner/DDA with the obligation to give either a flat or pay its value.
9. In view of the above the revision petitioner/DDA is directed to pay a compensation of Rupees five lakhs to the respondent/complainant, within a period of three months from the date of this order. Delay, if any, shall carry interest at 10% per annum. The revision petition stands disposed off in the above terms. | 
