The obligation of the service provider to ensure personal service of important documents and the illegality of automatic cancellation without personal service.

ORDER

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral)- Admittedly, the respondent was declared successful in the draw held by the appellant in 1991 but allotment could not be conveyed because of stay orders of the High Court. However, appellant claimed to have sent subsequently demand-cum-allotment letter to the respondent on 14.10.1993 by registered post. But the respondent did not receive the same and, therefore, failed to make the payment as demanded and the allotment was cancelled and the plot was allotted to somebody else. Consequently, the respondent filed the instant complaint before the District Forum for restoration of the allotment.

2. Vide impugned order dated 4.2.2003 the District Forum found the appellant guilty for deficiency in service in not informing the respondent and not serving the demand-cum-allotment letter personally upon the respondent and directed it to restore the allotment at the price indicated in the letter dated 16.10.1993 on the same terms and conditions as contained therein and if the same plot is not available, some other plot of the near about same size be allotted.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

4. We have held in case after case that wherever substantial right of a person, like the one in quesion, that allotment of the plot or flat is involved, it is obligatory upon the service provider to ensure that the service of demand-cum-allotment letter is effected personally upon the consumer. Merely by sending allotment-cum-demand letter through registered post does not fulfil the obligation. Unless and until the allottee receives the communication personally he is not supposed to know as to the allotment as well as demand made by the DDA. Such obligation all the more becomes important when there is a clause that the allotment shall stand cancelled automatically in case of non-payment of the demand. Unless and until registered documents are enclosed with acknowledgement due receipts and the acknowledgment is received back with the purported signatures of the consumer which should be invariably compared with the signatures on application forms it is not open to the DDA to cancel the allotment. Automatic cancellation without personal service upon the allotment abridges and violates the most valuable right of the allottee.

5. We have received hundreds of cases wherein allotments were cancelled automatically because of non-payment of demand made through allotment-cum-demand letter in spite of the fact that the DDA did not care to ensure whether such an important document which confers substantial right of the person was personally received by him or not. Failure of the DDA in not ensuring this fact renders the cancellation of allotment illegally and arbitrarily and sometimes clandestinely. Such a conduct amounts to grossest kind of deficiency in service which in terms of Section 2(1)(g) means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of contract or otherwise in relation to any service.

6. It is interesting that the higher authorities or officers don t see such cases personally to find out whether the allotment-cum-demand letter has been received personally by the allottee or not and with closed eyes ditto the recommendation of junior staff for automatic cancellation.

7. In the instant case the appellant has failed to prove the receipt of the demand-cum-allotment letter by the respondent personally and, therefore, cancellation of allotment was wrongful and illegal.

8. However, it is contended by the Counsel for the appellant that plots are not available in that area. Therefore, we modify the impugned order by giving liberty to the appellant to put the name of the respondent in the next draw of lot or allot alternative plot at the price indicated in the letter dated 16.10.1993 on the same terms and