1.      The present Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the Appellant against the order dated 16.04.2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission) in CC/230/2007.

2.     Case of the Complainant/Respondent is that he was registered with the Appellant under its Vth Self Financing Scheme for allotment of a Category III Flat. The Complainant paid the Appellant Rs.15,000/- as registration fees and accordingly, the Appellant allotted a flat in his name in Mukherjee Nagar at an estimated cost of Rs.7,81,200/-, vide Allotment Letter dated 15.03.1994. According to the Complainant, the Allotment Letter was incomplete, as the list of approved financial institutions from where loan could be obtained for payment towards the flat, was not provided. In the absence of the list of approved financial institutions, he could not avail a loan for payment of 90% of the demand towards the flat allotted to him. He sought for the same from the DDA, vide letter dated 15.04.1994, but the same was not sent. Subsequently, vide letter dated 11.09.1996, the Appellant informed the Respondent that his allotment was cancelled due to non-payment of demanded instalments. Thereafter, in the year 1997, the father of the Respondent met the Principal Commissioner of the Appellant and showed a letter of a broker of Vasant Kunj regarding allotment of Category III SFS Flat bearing No. 3115 Pocket B-4, Vasant Kunj, following which the Appellant placed the matter before a Restoration Committee. The Restoration Committee meeting was held and it was decided by the Appellant that the Respondent would be considered for allotment of a Category III SFS flat in Vasant Kunj. Accordingly, on 24.12.1999, in a computerized draw the Complainant was allotted a Category III SFS Flat and informed, vide letter dated 28.12.1999, that he had been allotted flat No. 4066, Pocket 5 & 6, Sector B, Vasant Kunj. On receipt of the said letter dated 28.12.1999, the Respondent made representations to the Appellant stating that he had been wronged by the Appellant and lost his earlier allotment and therefore, the new allotment should be made to him at the old cost. The Appellant, however, informed the Complainant, vide letter dated 03.03.2000, that the new allotment would be made at the current cost prevailing at that time. Despite his protests, he received a demand letter dated 14.08.2000 from the Appellant in which the cost of the newly allotted flat was stated to be Rs.19,41,400/-, which was the cost prevailing in the year 2000. Thereafter a series of correspondence was exchanged between the Parties regarding the cost and eventually, the Appellant, vide letter dated 17.04.2003, informed the Respondent that the allotment of the Flat bearing No. 4066, Pocket 5 & 6, Sector B, Vasant Kunj stood cancelled. The Respondent, left with no other option, filed a Complaint in the State Commission with the following prayer:-

“Under the facts and circumstances explained and the averments/contentions made herein above, the Complainant therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to issue following orders/directions to the Respondent :-

(a) A direction to the Respondent to keep reserved one Category !!! SFS flat in Vasant Kunj for allotment to the Complainant pending disposal of the complaint.

(b) A direction to the Respondent to allot a Category III Flat in Vasant Kunj to the Complainant at the cost of prevalent in the 1997, when allotment of flat no. 3115, Pocket B-4, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, was allotted to him, but not informed and cancelled arbitrarily and then the said flat allotted and given possession to someone else, or at the cost of 2000.

(c) A Direction to the Respondent to give compensation of Rs. 20 lacs to the Complainant for the harassment, inconvenience, mental torture and agony caused to him by the actions of the Respondent for the last 14 years; and

(d) Pass such other or further order as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

3.    The Complaint was contested by the Appellant-Opposite Party who denied the allegations. The Appellant denied that incomplete allocation letter was issued in respect of Mukhrjee Nagar flat. The Appellant justified the cancellation of allotment, due to non-payment of the requisite instalments and therefore, the demand-cum-allotment letter for the new allotment was issued at the prevailing cost. It was further stated that the new allotment was also cancelled as no payment was made by the Respondent.

4.    The State Commission after hearing both the Parties and perusing the record of the case, passed the following directions: -

“Under these circumstances we hereby direct:

i) The DDA shall allot the flat of Category III in Vasant Kunj, New Delhi in favour of the complainant at the prevalent cost. The demand-cum-allotment letter shall be issued within one month from today and on deposit of the entire amount by the complainant, the possession shall be delivered to the complainant within a month.

ii) The DDA shall also pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and sheer suffering, inclusive of litigation charges.”

5.     Aggrieved by the State Commission’s order dated 16.04.2013, the Appellant preferred the present Appeal before this Commission with the following prayer: -

“In view of the above, it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to:

a) Set aside the impugned order dated 16.04.2013 passed by Ld. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Delhi in an Complaint No. 230/2007 titled as “Shri Sandeep Gandotra Vs Delhi Development Authority:.

b) Pass any other or further order (s) which this Hon’ble Commission deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

6.    Heard the Learned Counsels for the Parties and carefully perused the record. Brief Facts of the Case are that the Respondent was registered with the Appellant under its Vth Self Financing Scheme for allotment of a Category III Flat. The Respondent paid the Appellant Rs.15,000/- as registration fees and accordingly, the Appellant allotted a flat in the name of the Respondent at Mukherjee Nagar at an estimated cost of Rs.7,81,200/-vide Allotment Letter dated 15.03.1994. However the allotment was cancelled, vide letter dated 11.09.1996, due to non-payment of demanded instalments. Thereafter, at the request of the father of the Respondent, the matter was placed before a Restoration Committee which restored the allotment. On 24.12.1999, in a computerized draw, the Respondent was allotted a Category III SFS Flat bearing No. 4066 in Sector B, Pocket 5 & 6, Vasant Kunj. Accordingly, vide letter dated 28.12.1999, the Respondent was informed of the same. On this, the Respondent made representations to the Appellant that the new allotment should be made to him at the old cost. The Appellant, however, informed the Respondent, vide letter dated 03.03.2000, that the new allotment would be made at the current cost prevailing at that time. A demand letter dated 14.08.2000 was sent to the Appellant for Rs.19,41,400/- towards the cost of the newly allotted flat at the price prevailing in the year 2000. After a series of correspondence between the Parties, the Appellant, vide letter dated 17.04.2003, informed the Respondent that the allotment of the Flat bearing No. 4066, Pocket 5 & 6, Sector B, Vasant Kunj stood cancelled.

7.    Heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and carefully perused the record. The Counsel for the Appellant contended that the State Commission erred by not appreciating that the Respondent failed to pay the instalments as per the allotment letter. The Counsel for Appellant relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sky Line Contractor Private Limited Vs State of UP (2008) 8 SCC 264 wherein it was held that in case of non-deposit of amount in the stipulated time period, an allottee was not entitled for allotment of a flat.

8.      The Counsel for the Respondent-Complainant contended that the Allotment Letter in respect of the Mukherjee Nagar flat was incomplete as the accompanying Annexure which gave a list of the approved financial institutions from which loan could be obtained towards payment for the flat was not provided. It was further contended that the Respondent was wronged in the allocation of the Mukherjee Nagar flat and therefore, the new allocation of the flat in Vasant Kunj should be made at 1993-1994 cost, i.e. Rs.11,72,000/-.

9.    The State Commission held that the entire controversy in the case was whether the Appellant-Opposite Party had rightly cancelled the allotment of the flat allotted to the Complainant-Respondent in the absence of any proof of delivery of the Allotment letter. After summoning and perusing the entire record of the DDA, the State Commission held that in the absence of material evidence that the Demand-Cum-Allotment letter was served to the Respondent, the cancellation of the allotment was not proper. The State Commission relied on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.N. Bharat Vs. DDA and Anr. AIR 2009 SC 1233 as well as the law set down by the Delhi High Court in B.K. Mehta Vs. DDA, D.S. Sethi Vs. DDA 149 (2008) DLT 481 (DB) and Naresh Kumar vs. DDA (2008) DLT 369. Based on the aforesaid decisions, the State Commission rightly observed that “in the case in hand the onus to prove the delivery of the demand-cum-allotment letter is not discharged by the DDA as they had failed to provide any proof of the delivery of the demand-cum-allotment letter, show cause Notice, and cancellation letter.”

10.   Even in the pleadings before this Commission, the Counsel for the Appellant had not stated that the Allotment Letter was duly served on the Respondent. The Appellant had also not furnished any documentary evidence to show that the Allotment Letter was sent to the Respondent. The only averment made by the Appellant in this regard was that the Respondent himself had filed the Allotment Letter along with the Complaint and therefore, it should be deemed that the Respondent received the same. The State Commission had clearly addressed this contention by observing that “if any allottee comes to the knowledge with regard to the allotment of any flat through property dealer later on, it is hearsay evidence and cannot form the basis that the complainant had been allotted a flat”. I am inclined to accept the aforesaid observation of the State Commission. Furthermore, the State Commission rightly observed that the Appellant’s averment that the Respondent himself filed the Allotment Letter would not be sufficient on the part of the Appellant to discharge its onus to show that the Allotment Letter was delivered to the Respondent. Facts of the case in Sky Line Contractor Private Limited (supra) are different from the facts in the present case. In that case, the allottee had argued that although the allottee had failed to deposit the premium amount in a bound manner, it was accepted by the NOIDA which had accordingly waived and, therefore, the allotment made could not have been cancelled on the ground that the amount had not been deposited in time. It was, however, not the case of the allottee that the allotment letter was not duly received by him. The allottee had duly received the allotment letter, in spite of which payment was not made by him on time. The aforementioned decision, therefore, must be distinguished from the factual matrix of the present case. In the present case, the Appellant has not produced any evidence to prove that the Allotment Letter was served on the Respondent. Respondent, therefore, could not have been expected to pay the consideration amount towards the allotment. Accordingly, no punitive action could have been taken against the Respondent for non-payment of money towards the allotment and the State Commission had rightly held that cancellation of allotment by the Appellant was not proper. The judgment in Sky Line Contractor Private Limited (supra) is of no help to the Appellant. The State Commission passed the order on the basis of evidence adduced by the Parties and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.N. Bharat Vs. DDA and Anr. AIR 2009 SC 1233 as well as the law set down by the Delhi High Court in B.K. Mehta Vs. DDA, D.S. Sethi Vs. DDA 149 (2008) DLT 481 (DB) and Naresh Kumar vs. DDA (2008) DLT 369.

11.   For the foregoing discussion, order passed by the State Commission is justified. Appellant failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission, warranting interference in exercise of Appellate jurisdiction. Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.