Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. This is a complaint filed by the Complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in the service of the opponent in not allotting a site to her in terms of the temporary allotment letter given to her.<br /> 2. The grievances of the Complainant are that she had applied for allotment of site measuring 40’ x 60’ in Devanur 3rd Stage of Mysore and paid Rs.5,000/- as initial deposit. The opponent allotted her site no. 3708 on 25.02.2001. It is further alleged that the area where site was allotted was undeveloped, and the opponent passed a resolution on 29.06.2002 assuring allotment of a site in a developed area and notice was sent to her calling upon to pay the balance amount, but the opponent kept quite. As the result, she gave a representation to it on 16.09.2006 demanding final notice for which the opponent has not given any reply. Cause of action of the complaint arose during on April 2006 and subsequently and thereby prayed for a direction to the opponent to issue final notice for depositing the balance amount and to execute the necessary documents in her favour and also to award compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.<br /> 3. The opponent has resisted the complaint by filing version admitting to had allotted a site to the Complainant on 25.02.2001, has further contended that the complaint is not maintainable and denied to had issued an endorsement dated 13.09.2002 calling upon the Complainant to pay the balance amount and stated that the Complainant failed to pay the balance amount. Therefore it cancelled the allotment made in favour of the complainant on 14.02.03 and stated that they have given suitable reply to the letter given by the Complainant on 27.05.2005 and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.<br /> 4. In the course of enquiry, the complainant and an Assistant Registrar of the opponent have filed their affidavit evidence. The Complainant has also filed copy of the allotment letter, receipt for having paid Rs.5,000/- as advance and a copy of the representation she given to the opponent on 16.09.2006. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> 5. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opponent has caused deficiency of service in not allotting the site proposed to her? <br /> 2. Whether she is entitled for relief as prayed for?<br /> 3. What order?<br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 and 2 : In the negative.<br /> Point no.3 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Points no. 1 & 2:- The opponent in his version and also in the affidavit evidence have admitted that on the application of the complainant a site measuring 40’ x 60’ was allotted to the complainant by issuing an allotment letter dated 25.02.2001. But, it is his contention that the complainant in the allotment letter itself was given time stipulating the time limit for payment of the balance site value, but the complainant neither paid the balance amount nor took interest in that regard. Therefore, they cancelled the allotment of site on 14.02.03. The complainant has not denied, that she after receipt of the allotment letter has not paid the balance amount at any time till the date of this complaint. On perusal of the contents of this allotment letter reveal that the Complainant had paid advance amount of Rs.5,000/- and she was required to pay 15% of the site value i.e. Rs.24,000/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of the allotment letter and the remaining amount of Rs.1,31,000/- should have been paid within 90 days from the date of receipt of the allotment order. Further, the contents of the letter also reads that in the event of the default by the complainant to pay the balance amount, the allotment gets itself automatically cancelled. Therefore, it is evident that the complainant did not pay any amount thereafter except paying advance of Rs.5,000/- along with the application. The complainant though in her affidavit has alleged that the opponent had promised her to allot a site in a developed area and they will also inform her but has not substantiated it. It is, further stated by the Complainant that she approached the opponent several times and requested them to allot a site, but the opponent kept quite has also not been proved by the tangible evidence. It appears from the materials placed on record that the Complainant after receipt of the allotment letter dated 25.02.2001 has not proved to have approached the opponent at any time either for requesting them to extend time or to pay the balance amount to get the allotment finalized. Of course, she has referred to a representation given by her to the opponent on 16.09.06. The opponent has admitted to have received this letter and replied suitably. Thus, it emerges from these admitted facts that after issue of conditional allotment letter dated 25.02.2001 till 16.09.06, the complainant never bother to do the part of her duty either paying the balance amount or praying for extension of time to pay the balance amount. The complainant has not placed any materials before this Forum to prove that she had at any time approached the opponent or contacted them for any favour. Therefore, the Complaint now filed by the complainant in our view is barred by limitation. Because the allotment letter stipulated 90 days time for paying the entire sital value on receipt of the letter. The site allotted in favour of the complainant said to have been cancelled by the opponent on 14.02.03. The representation given by the complainant is dated 16.09.2006. Therefore, in the absence of any correspondences are representations between the complainant and the opponent to keep the cause alive limitation to this complaint, has expired. Because cause of action for this complainant to file the complaint would have arisen after expiry of 90 days time fixed for payment, as shown in the allotment letter or from the date of cancellation of the allotment on 14.02.2003. Since the complaint is filed after expiry of two years the same is barred by limitation under section 24(A) of the Act. Coming on merits of the complaint for the reasons stated above the complainant herself is at fault in not complying with the terms of the allotment letter and for having slept over on issue till 16.09.2006 on which date she gave a representation. The Complainant has produced a copy of the resolution passed by the opponent Board on 29.06.2002 under which the opponent Board had resolved to extend 30 days time to the allottees for payment of the balance amount with interest. As could be seen from the case file of the opponent that as per the resolution of it’s Board, a final notice dated 13.09.02 shown to have been sent to the complainant on 19.09.02 to her address calling upon her to pay the remaining sital value of Rs.1,55,000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of this notice, failing which the allotment will be cancelled besides forfeiting the advance amount. The Complainant has not challenged the genuineness of the issue of this final notice by the opponent. This notice shown to had been sent to the same address of the complainant as given by her in the application and it also tallies with the present address given by the Complainant in the complaint. Thereafter, it is found from the file of the opponent that as they did not receive any response from the complainant, they passed an order on 14.02.03 cancelling the allotment and even copy of this cancellation order was also shown to had been sent to the complainant on 22.03.03. Therefore, on perusal all these materials placed before us, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant has failed to prove that there is deficiency in the service of the opponent and on the other hand, we hold that the complainant herself has committed default in not paying the balance amount of the sital value and get the allotment finalized. Therefore, she cannot be permitted to take advantage of her own fault by attributing deficiency of service to the opponent. Hence, we find no merits in the complaint. Accordingly we answer point no.1 and 2 in the negative and hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed With the result, we pass the following order:-<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 3. Return the original file to the learned counsel for the opponent. <br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br />