ORDER

R.K. Agrawal, President.—The present Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 13.06.2016 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as “State Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant was allowed and the Appellant was directed to allot, within two months, a flat of category-III preferably, if category III is not available, then category II flat in Dwarka or Rohini or North Delhi. Allotment was directed to be made at the rate on which last flat in the said category and said area was allotted by the Opposite Party. However, if the no flat under the SFS Scheme could be allotted to the Complainant, Appellant was directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lacs Only). The said amount was ascertained on the basis of difference between the amount for which booking was done and market value of the same at the date of filing of the Consumer Complaint.

2. Brief facts of the case leading upto the present Appeal are that Appellant had floated nine self finance schemes (hereinafter to be referred as “SFS Scheme”) for allotment of flats at various locations in Delhi. The Second SFS Scheme, 1978 was floated in December, 1978. The Complainant contended that he had deposited the requisite registration amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) vide receipt no 3862 dated 22.12.1978. Pertinently, as per Clause 13 of the second SFS Scheme, “those once registered will continue to remain registered, if they have not opted for any scheme or unless registration deposit paid by them is withdrawn.”

3. Subsequently, Appellant, in June, 1987, issued brochure giving tentative cost of flats under First SFS Scheme to Sixth SFS Scheme for various floors ranging from Rs.1,70,000/- till Rs.3,18,000/-. The maximum tentative price of the flat was declared to be Rs.3,18,000/- for second floor at Kalkaji, New Delhi, which was inclusive of terrace floor and car garage.

4. It is the case of the Complainant that he kept on enquiring by personal visits or via telephone from the Appellant about the status of allotment of flats under the said scheme, but his efforts were gone to no avail. Via letters dated 30.12.1988 and 20.01.1989, Complainant sought information regarding the allotment of flats, however no reply was given by the Appellant.

5. It was only on 15.01.1990, Appellant gave advertisement announcing release of 600 flats under the SFS scheme in Times of India. However, by this time Appellant had floated Third, Fourth and Fifth SFS Scheme. The registrants of Third, Fourth and Fifth Scheme were allowed to apply whereas the registrants of First and Second SFS Scheme were denied such opportunity. Complainant alleges that such act of the Appellant was arbitrary and it was without any sum and substance to overlook the registrants of First and Second SFS Scheme.

6. On 10.06.1990, the Appellant further published advertisement for release of 3000 SFS flats. As per the contents of the advertisement, registrants of Third till Sixth SFS Scheme were eligible without disclosing the reason behind not allowing registrants of First and Second SFS Scheme.

7. Aggrieved by the actions of the Appellant, Complainant made representations before the Appellant on 20.06.1990 and on 16.07.1990 seeking opportunity for allotment, however, again no reply was afforded to the Complainant.

8. Again on 23.10.1990, Appellant advertised for allotment of 3000 flats and Complainant again filed objection dated 25.10.1990, assailing the decision of the Appellant denying permission to registrants of Second SFS Scheme.

9. Subsequently, another advertisement was floated in Times of India on 15.02.1991 for release of 3000 flats, wherein registrants of Fifth and Sixth were eligible to apply. Again representations were made to the Appellant by the Complainant on 06.03.1991 and 20.03.1999, but no reply was sent by the Appellant.

10. Another advertisement was floated in Hindustan Times on 1