ORDER HON’BLE MR. DINESH SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER Taken up through video conferencing. 1. This Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the ‘Act 1986’) in challenge to the Order dated 10.02.2014 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 2380 of 2012 arising out of the Order dated 24.09.2012 in C.C. No. 66 of 10 of The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ghaziabad (the ‘District Forum’). The Petitioner, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, was the Complainant before the District Forum (the ‘Complainant’). The Respondent, Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA), was the Opposite Party before the District Forum (the ‘GDA’). 2. Arguments were heard from the learned Counsel on 07.01.2021. The material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 24.09.2012 of the District Forum, the impugned Order dated 10.02.2014 of the State Commission and the Petition, was perused. 3. The dispute relates to cancellation of allotment of a flat by the GDA on the Complainant failing to deposit the cost of the flat with the GDA. 4. The District Forum vide its Order dated 24.09.2012 allowed the Complaint. It directed the GDA to handover possession of the subject flat to the Complainant and to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs. 2,000/-. 5. The State Commission vide its impugned Order of 10.02.2014 accepted the Appeal of the GDA. It set aside the Order dated 24.09.2012 of the District Forum. Consequently the Complaint stood dismissed. 6. It is admitted that no receipt(s) of depositing the cost of the subject flat with the GDA were produced by the Complainant in his evidence. 7. The GDA had not filed its Written Version before the District Forum. That being as it is, it was required of the District Forum to make fair appraisal of the evidence adduced by the Complainant, that the Complainant had in fact deposited the cost of the subject flat with the GDA. The District Forum erred in relying wholly and solely on the affirmation on affidavit made by the Complainant that he had deposited the cost of the subject flat with the GDA, overlooking that no evidence (in the form of receipts from the GDA, the Complainant’s bank statements showing debit from his account and credit to the account of the GDA, etc.) to establish that the Complainant had in fact deposited the cost of the flat with the GDA, had been proffered by the Complainant. 8. The State Commission has referred to the various letters written by the GDA asking the Complainant to deposit the cost of the subject flat, and to the GDA’s unequivocal and explicit affirmation that the Complainant had in fact not made any deposit towards the cost of the subject flat. It has passed a reasoned order, determining that the Complainant had not made any deposit towards the flat. 9. The GDA is a government development authority. It functions ( / is required and expected to function) as per its laid down administrative, financial and technical rules. In the ordinary wont it takes deposits through cheques, drafts, electronically. Its accounts are subject to audit. 10. The Complainant failed to furnish any receipt or any bank statement etc. in support of his affirmation of having made deposit for the subject flat with the GDA. The GDA made its affirmation on the basis of its official record. The Complainant also failed to show any infarction of a financial or administrative norm, or that the GDA adopted any unlawful or corrupt etc. practice in his case. 11. As such the critique made by the State Commission cannot be faulted. The Revision Petition preferred by the Complainant before this Commission fails. The State Commission’s Order of 10.02.2014 is confirmed. The Complaint stands dismissed. 12. A copy each of this Order be sent by the Registry to both sides within three days of its pronouncement. | 
