Negligence of the complainant in pursuing the application for allotment influenced the court's decision.

ORDER

1. The petitioner being aggrieved of the dismissal of his appeal against the order of State Commission, has preferred this revision petition.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that petitioner filed a consumer complaint alleging that he applied for allotment of flat under New Pattern Registration Scheme launched by the opposite party and deposited Rs. 1500/- as registration fee. It is the case of the complainant that after the registration, he did not get any communication about the fate of his application from the opposite party. In the beginning of 2007, petitioner came to know that a draw of lot under said scheme was earlier held by the opposite party. The petitioner thus checked the website of the opposite party and came to know that in a draw of lot, he was allotted flat No. 55, Sector 20, Pocket 15, Rohini. The petitioner never got any intimation nor he was delivered the allotment letter. According to the petitioner, on coming to know about allotment of flat, he approached the office of the opposite party to get the allotment letter and even moved applications under RTI but the opposite party did not issue allotment letter. Being aggrieved, the petitioner raised a consumer dispute.

3. The opposite party in its written statement took a preliminary objection that complaint was barred by limitation. So far as booking of flat and deposit of registration fee is concerned, it is not disputed. According to the opposite party, after the draw of lot, letter was sent at the address of the complainant but complainant did not respond. Therefore, allotment was cancelled and flat was allotted to next eligible candidate in the waiting list.

4. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and evidence allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to refund to the petitioner registration amount of Rs. 1500/- and also directed the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs to the petitioner for mental and physical harassment.

5. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The State Commission did not find fault with the order of the District Forum and while concurring with the order of the District Forum, dismissed the appeal. Thus, the revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Fora below have failed to appreciate that opposite party was not justified in cancelling the allotment for its failure to deliver the allotment letter to the complainant and as such the opposite party being deficient in service should have been directed to allot some other flat of the same value to him or in the alternative, the compensation should have been on higher side taking into account the price of value of the property during the intervening period.

7. We do not find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Looking into the sequence of events, we find that registration for allotment of flat was done in the year 1980. If the contention of complainant is taken on its face value, after depositing the registration fee in the year 1980, the complainant slept over the matter for 27 years till 2007, in which year the complainant came to know about draw of lot. From the above, it is clear that petitioner had been grossly negligent and he himself is to be blamed for cancellation of the allotment. The petitioner appears to be trying to take advantage of the fact that record of the opposite party is not traceable due to passage of more than two decades. Thus, under the circumstances, we cannot find fault with the order of the State Commission holding that if the petitioner was genuine purchaser, he would have pursued his application vigorously and would have not waited till 2007.

8. In view of the discussion above, we do not fault any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction. There is no reason to enhance the compensation. Revision Petition i