Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The Complainant has come up with this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with his grievance that he had applied for allotment of a site measuring 60 x 40 ft. to the Opposite party and came to know that the Opposite party on 14.07.2003 allotted a site in his favour at 3rd stage, Devanur Extension, Mysore and asked for issue of an allotment letter to him. But the Opposite party issued an endorsement dated 28.10.2005 informing him that the site allotted to him has been cancelled on 25.09.2004. That he an enquiry in the office of the Opposite party came to know that the Opposite party sent allotment letter to his old address, though he had given his change of address in the office of the Opposite party and got it entered in the address register. The site allotted him is still available now and therefore contending that sending of allotment letter to the old address is not correct and thus has prayed for a direction to the Opposite party to allot that site which was allotted to him and in the alternative to allot a site in any other layout. <br /> 2. The Opposite party entered appearance through his advocate and filed version denying the allegations made by the complainant against him and also denied the complainant had given his change of address to them at any time and stated that the allotment letter was sent to the complainant, but he did not discharge the functions he was required to do. Therefore the allotment was cancelled and stated that the complaint is not maintainable and to dismiss the same. <br /> 3. During the enquiry of the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence reproducing the complaint allegations. On behalf of the Opposite party, the Assistant Secretary has filed his affidavit evidence reproducing the stand they have taken in the version. We have secured the original file maintained in respect of the allotment made to the complainant from the office of the Opposite party. <br /> 4. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records. <br /> <br /> <br /> 5. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Complainant proves that he had given his change of address to the Opposite party and that the Opposite party despite that, had sent the allotment letter to his old address and thereby cancelled the allotment legally, which act amounts to deficiency in service? <br /> 2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs as prayed for?<br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- The undisputed facts are that the complainant had applied for allotment of a site measuring 60 x 40 ft. to the Opposite party and the complainant was allotted a site by the Opposite party on 14.07.2003 and that allotment order was sent to the complainant address he had furnished in the application by registered post and that registered post was returned to the Opposite party with a postal Shara “as addressee left long back”. The allotment letter dated 14.07.2003 shown to had been dispatched to the complainant to his address given in the application on 11.08.2003 and admittedly returned with a postal shara as stated above.<br /> 8. It is the contention of the complainant that he after changing the address had given an application, had informed the Opposite party about change of address and contended to had got it changed in the address book said to had been maintained by the Opposite party. But, the complainant has not been able to convince us or prove before us in he having at any time got his address changed or furnished to the Opposite party. The file secured from the Opposite party office also do not indicate anywhere, in the complainant having had given any representation to the Opposite party to note down the change of address. The postal shara, which is uncontroverted by the complainant shows that the complainant left his given address long back. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that there is no truth in the allegation of the complainant that he had given his change of address, got entered in the register of the Opposite party and that the Opposite party has committed deficiency in sending the allotment letter to his old address. <br /> 9. The Opposite party as could be seen from the file, made a detail note of sending the allotment letter to the complainant, though registered post which was returned with the shara. It is also noted to had published in the newspaper on 27.09.2003 for the information of the allottees including the complainant also in the paper of 20.07.2004 and also notified in the notice board of the Opposite party giving opportunity to the complainant and other applicants to collect the allotment letters and to do other needful acts. We also find a copy of the paper publication published in Vijaya Karnataka dated 06.08.2004 and also affixture of notice on the notice board of the Opposite party calling upon the complainant to go to their office and to collect the allotment letter. After, exhausting all these courses, the Opposite party finally cancelled the allotment of site made in favour of the complainant as found from the order in the file and also endorsement issued to this effect to the complainant under which the site allotted in favour of the complainant came to be cancelled on 25.09.2004 and a copy was given to the complainant on 29.10.2004. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the contention of the complainant that the Opposite party without affording opportunity to him has cancelled the allotment arbitrarily and caused deficiency in their service. Thus on perusal of all these materials found from the file of the Opposite party, we are inclined to hold that the complainant has failed to substantiate his allegations and therefore we find no merits in his allegations as the result we answer point no.1 in the negative and hold that complaint is liable to be dismissed. <br /> 10. The complainant in the relief coloumn of the complaint has contended that the site allotted to him has not been allotted to anybody, therefore the Opposite party be directed to allot that site to him in the alternative to allot a site in any other layout. Once this Forum has come to know that cancellation of site made by the Opposite party is because of the fault of the Opposite party even if that site is not allotted to anybody this Forum, under these circumstances, cannot direct the Opposite party to allot that site to the complainant or to grant the alternative relief, because the Rules of allotment shall have to be followed even in such cases. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Opposite party for allotment in accordance with Rules. With this observation, we pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Return the original file to the learned counsel for Opposite party.<br /> 3. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />