Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President—Against the order dated 8.4.90 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 1206/90 the opposite parties have filed this appeal under Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act” herein). By the impugned order, the District Forum directed the opposite parties-applicants that the amount of DC/SDC which was paid by the complainant-respondent to the Rajasthan Housing Board (“the Board”) may be set off against the dues that may be outstanding against the complainant.

2. The complainant-respondent was allotted House No. 40/11 in Mansarower Colony, Jaipur after payment of the entire amount. The possession of the house was delivered to the complainant on 10.7.89 and since then the complainant is owner in possession of the house. The complainant has alleged that by allotment-cum-possession letter No. 495 dated 22.5.89 a sum of Rs. 5668/- being extra charges for DC/SDC houses was recovered from him. It may be stated here that a revised allotment-cum-possession letter dated 53.90 was issued in which extra charges for DC/SDC houses mentioned were Rs. 5596/-. It is not in dispute before us that the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs. 5,668/- in pursuance of the allotment-cum-possession letter dated 22.5.89. There was a road towards the West of the house upto Sept.90 which was used as way by inhabitants of the colony. It is said that opposite parties No. 2 and 3 on account of malice with the complainant constructed wall and closed it declaring that a commercial complex would be constructed. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties had no right to deprive him of the facility of the road after realizing extra cost for the house, it being constructed on a corner plot. The complainant has stated his grievances in detail in para 4 of the complaint. The complaint dated 29.11.90 was filed praying for the grant of the following reliefs :

“ ATTAH PRARTHNA PATTER PRASTUT KAR NIVEDEN HAI KI PRARTHNA PATTER SWEEKAR KIYA JAKAR VIPAKSHI JAN KO NIRDESH DIYA GAYA KI VEH PRARTHI KE MAKAN KA CORNER PEHELE KI BHANTI PASCHIM KI AUR NIRMITS SADAK KI AUR REHENE DE VA PURB-PASCHIM DEEWAAR KO TURANT PRABHAV SE APNE KHARCH PAR HATWAE VA PRARTHI KO KSHATI PURTI BATAUR DUS HAZAR RUPEY VIPAKSHI JANO SE DILWAYE JAYE.”

With the complainant, respondent submitted photographs, plan and copies of allotment-cum-possession letter.

3. A version of the case was filed traversing the allegations made in the complaint by opposite party No. 3. It was denied that any comer plot was sold by the opposite parties to the complainant. As regards the extra charges for SDC houses amounting to Rs. 5668/- and subsequently that amount was revised to Rs. 5596/- were mentioned. According to the opposite parties, the plot on which the “house allotted is constructed was a SDC and not a DC. It was denied that there was any road on the western side of the complainant’s allotted house. It was also stated that the extra charges amounting to Rs. 5668/- mentioned in the first allotment letter or Rs. 5596/- mentioned in the second allotment-cum-possession letter were for SDC plot. Claim for compensation was denied. The District Forum heard the arguments on 22.3.91 and passed the impugned order as stated above. Hence this appeal by opposite parties as aforesaid.

4. We have heard Mr. R.K. Sharma learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Yashpal Garg learned Counsel for the respondents and carefully examined the order under appeal in the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. A perusal of the plan submitted with the complaint clearly shows that that house was built on a corner plot. There is no dispute about the correctness of the plan. It is also not disputed before us that the wall has been constructed by which allotted house ceased to be on a corner plot. As has been stated in the version of the case that a sum of Rs. 5668/- which is mentioned in the first allotment-cum-posses