Sri. G.V.Balasubramanya,<br /> Member,<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant applied for a 40 ft x 60 ft site from the O.P. in the year 1992. He remitted the requisite money also. On 7-5-01 the complainant wrote a letter to the O.P. informing about the change in his address. In the second week of August 2005 he learnt that he had been allotted a site bearing no.932 in Devanur III Stage, Mysore. However, no allotment letter was not received from the O.P. though other letters written to the old address were redirected to the new address. On 16-8-05 the complainant learned about the allotment letter and wrote a letter to the O.P. appraising the facts. But the officials of the O.P.’s office told him that the allotment had been cancelled. Finally, a communication about cancellation was received from the O.P.s on 22-8-05.<br /> 2. The complainant has contended that the cancellation of allotment without informing the allotment first amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. He has prayed that the cancellation of allotment be set aside or if the same site has been reallotted to another person, an equivalent site be allotted. He has, also, claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/-.<br /> 3. The O.P. in his version has denied receiving any letter from the complainant intimating the change in his address. It is asserted that the allotment letter was sent to the address given by the complainant by registered post on 12-8-03. But the envelop was returned with an endorsement “No such addressee in this door number”.<br /> 4. It is, further, stated that the allotment was cancelled after the notice through news papers on 6-8-04. Having defended in these words, the O.P. has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 5. From these contentions of the parties the following points arise for our consideration:-<br /> a. Whether the complainant proves that cancellation of the site allotted to him amounts to deficiency in service?<br /> b. Whether the O.P. proves that the cancellation has been made in accordance with the Rules?<br /> c. What order or relief?<br /> 6. The above points have been answered as under:-<br /> a. Point 5(a) : In the negative.<br /> b. Point 5(b) : In the affirmative.<br /> c. Point 5(c) : As per final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point 5(a):- The allotment of site to the complainant is not dispute. The O.P. has produced the office file. The allotment letter dated 14-7-03 was dispatched on 12-8-03 by RPAD. The envelop in which it was sent is also in the file. It clearly carries the noting of the postman who dropped an enquiry card and on 27-8-03 learnt that no such addressee resided at the given address. In the presence of these documents, a letter dated 7-5-2001 purported to be written by the complainant to the O.P. informing the change in address which bears no seal or signature of the O.P.’s office and which is not found in the office file, fails to convince us about the credibility of the complainant’s contention. If that letter was sent by post then it should have been in the office file and the complainant should have produced proof of having posted the letter.<br /> 8. The O.P. gave one more opportunity to some allottees including the complainant who had not received the allotment letter. A publication was given in Vijaya Karnataka daily dated 6-8-04 calling upon the allottees whose site number appeared in the publication but who had not received the allotment letters to deposit the price of the site within 15 days from the date of publication. We have noticed that the O.P. sent the notice of cancellation, also, to the same address to which he had sent the allotment letter. The envelop in which the cancellation intimation was sent is also in the file. The endorsement of the postman on the envelop is similar to the one found on the envelop by which allotment letter was sent in 2003. These documents give raise to 2 inferences. Firstly, that the complainant has failed to prove that he intimated the change in address. His letter dated 7-5-2001 is not a believable document. No doubt he has produced as many as 4 envelops to show how correspondence addressed to his old address was being redirected to the new address because of the instruction left at the post office and the co-operation of the neighbours. All the envelops produced by the complainant belong to the year 2000. It is true that these envelops bear the address given in the application for allotment of site. All these envelops have been redirected to his new address. But it must be noted that the allotment letter was dispatched to the complainant in the year 2003. According to him, he intimated the O.P. of the change in his address in the year 2001. That is a gap of 2 years. The complainant can not expect the post office and his neighbours to help him perpetually by redirecting his mail. Such an arrangement is only temporary and the responsibility of informing everybody of the change of address is on the person who changes his address. As we have disbelieved the letter dated 7-5-2001 through which, he says he intimated the change of his address, the surrounding circumstances, the correspondence and envelops found in the office file of the O.P. lead to a conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Hence, we answer the point in negative.<br /> 9. Point 5(b):- The O.P. has sent the allotment letter to the address given by the complainant. Then an opportunity was given through paper publication to those allottees who had not received the allotment letters. The complainant is a resident of Mysore. Hence, if the news paper publication also did not wake him up then he can not blame the O.P. All that we can say is that the complainant was negligent. The O.P. who receives thousands or lakhs of applications can not be asked to keep track of the change in address of the applicants. It is for the applicants to ensure that the change in address is properly intimated to the O.P. Where an applicant fails to provide us sufficient evidence that he has intimated the change in address no relief can be granted. Even if for a moment we would like to believe the complainant’s letter dated 7-5-2001, such letter was obviously sent by ordinary post. Thus the complainant has no evidence of having sent that letter. This is what we have called negligence. The cancellation of allotment and forfeiture of initial deposit have been done as per the terms of allotment contained in the allotment letter. We find no fault with it. Hence, we answer the point in the affirmative, and proceed to pass the following order:-<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to both parties according to Rules.<br />