This revision petition is directed against the order of Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, “State Commission”) dated 1.5.2014 whereby State Commission dismissed the appeal No.630 of 2013 preferred by the petitioner/Authority against the order of the District Forum, II, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi

2.   Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that in response to the scheme floated by the petitioner/Authority, respondent/complainant applied for allotment of flat.  The respondent was allotted flat no.98, Sector A9, Pocket-4, GR-I, Narela.  Pursuant to the allotment letter, the respondent deposited entire consideration amount as per the demand letter.  The respondent, however, instead of taking physical possession of the flat, applied for change of locality.  The request was not acceded to. The complainant approached the Lok Adalat but in vain and request was rejected by order dated 25.7.2006. Thereafter, the complainant approached the petitioner for taking physical possession of the flat allotted to her but she was told that flat in question had been allotted to other person, namely, Shri Arun Kumar Choudhary.  She was therefore, allotted an alternate flat in the same locality being flat no.186, Sector A9, Pocket-4, GR-I, Ground Floor, Narela. The complainant took physical possession of said flat alternatively offered. However, the complainant claiming the act of the petitioner to be deficiency in service filed the consumer complaint seeking interest on the amount paid by her for the period upto the delivery of the alternate flat.

3.   The complaint was resisted on the ground that the complainant herself did not take possession and for this reason after waiting for considerable time, the flat in question was allotted to Shri Arun Kumar Choudhary in a fresh draw held on 13.10.2006. It is further contended that a new flat was allotted to her in the same locality and that was accepted by her. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the petitioner/Authority.

4.   District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner/Authority was deficient in service and accordingly directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh as damages for delay of eight years in giving possession and Rs.25,000/- were also awarded towards cost.

5.   Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioner approached the State Commission and the appeal was dismissed vide impugned order.

6.   Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned orders of the Foras below are based on incorrect appreciation of the facts. Expanded on the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the relevant directions given by the District Forum whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1 lakh as damages for delay of eight years in giving possession and submitted that admittedly the complainant herself did not take possession therefore, the petitioner cannot be faulted for delay of eight years for giving alternate flat to the respondent/complainant.  Thus, she has urged for setting aside of the impugned order.

7.   We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.

8.   It is true that the delay in delivery of the possession took place because the complainant instead of taking possession sought change of the site. But the fact remains that the flat no.98, Sector A9, Pocket-4, GR-I, Narela allotted to the complainant was unauthorizedly re-allotted by the petitioner to a third person despite of the fact that complainant had paid entire consideration amount, which compelled the complainant to accept alternate flat. There is no justification for allotting the flat already allotted to the complainant to a third person and this act of the petitioner, in our view, amount to deficiency in service.  Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the foras below awarding damages and litigation cost to the respondent/complainant.

9.   For the reasons detailed above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to cost.