Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. This is Complaint filed by the Complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has alleged that she was applicant before the Opposite party for allotment of a site measuring 6 x 9 meters, paid Rs.750/- as deposit and remitted Rs.100/- as registration fee. During 1992 she was transferred, therefore she shifted from her address given in the application and intimated the change of address to the Opposite party on 05.02.1992. That during November – December 2004 she came to know from the friends, that on 14.07.2003 she was allotted a site at Devanur 3rd stage, Mysore and allotment letter was sent to her hold address. The allotment was cancelled as the notice of allotment sent to the address given in her application was returned unserved. She gave a representation on 20.02.2005 for restoration of the site on the ground she had intimated the change of address, but the allotment letter was not sent to that address. Cause of action arose on 20.02.2005 when she received an endorsement of the Opposite party stating that allotment of site was cancelled. The Opposite party without sending allotment letter to her changed address has caused deficiency in service and therefore cause of action has arisen and has prayed for a direction to the Opposite party to allot a site and to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/- to prosecuting this complaint.<br /> 2. The Opposite party has filed it’s version contending that the complaint is not maintainable under section 64 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, the complaint is barred by limitation. That the complainant had not given a change of address on 05.02.1992 and stated that allotment letter was sent to the complainant to the address given by her in the application, it had also published in the daily newspaper and also on it’s notice board, despite that the complainant did not go before them, therefore the allotment was cancelled and thus has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 3.The complainant in support of her complaint has filed her affidavit evidence and Xerox copies of certain documents. On behalf of the Opposite party, it’s Assistant Secretary has filed his affidavit evidence and they have made available their original file. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> 4.On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1.Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?<br /> 2.Whether the complainant proves that she had on 05.02.1992 had intimated the Opposite party regarding her change of address and that the Opposite party without sending the allotment letter to her changed address have caused deficiency in service by cancelling the allotment of site made in her favour?<br /> 3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?<br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1:In the negative.<br /> Point no.2:In the affirmative.<br /> Point no.3:See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6.Point no. 1:- On perusal of the complaint allegations, it is made clear by the complainant that she gave a representation on 20.02.2005 for restoration of the site on the ground that she had intimated the change of address, but the allotment letter was not sent to that address. Cause of action arose on 20.02.2005 when she was received an endorsement of the Opposite party in having cancelled the allotment. The complaint is presented to this Forum on 05.02.2007, the period if reckoned from 20.02.2005, the complaint can be safely be held as in time and not barred by limitation. Therefore, we answer this point in the negative.<br /> 7. Point no.2:- Regarding allotment of a site in favour of the complainant and it’s subsequent cancellation are not in dispute on the other hand are admitted by both the parties. Therefore we do not want to reiterate such admitted facts in this order and therefore we only referred to the main contention of the complainant regarding her intimation of change of address to the Opposite party and the stand of the Opposite party in having cancelled the site allotted in favour of the complainant.<br /> 8. The complainant in support of her contentions made in the complaint that she on 05.02.1992 intimated the Opposite party about her change of address has produced the endorsement issued by the office of the Opposite party, which disclose that the complainant shown to had given a representation requesting the Opposite parties to note done her change of address. In the endorsement dated 05.02.1992 issued by the Opposite party office they have even mentioned the D.D.No. under which a requisite fee was also paid by the complainant and application number. The Opposite party though in it’s version has denied the intimation said to had been given by the complainant regarding change of address, but they have not denied having issued the endorsement dated 05.02.1992 produced and relied upon by the complainant. Even during the course of arguments, we invited the attention of the counsel for the Opposite party to this endorsement and asked him either to admit this endorsement or to deny them, for which the learned counsel representing the Opposite party was not prepared to either to admit those endorsement or deny them. The complainant has also produced a Xerox copy of the endorsement issued by the Opposite party office dated 05.02.1992, which has also not been denied by the Opposite party. The endorsement relied upon by the complainant is in the letter head of the Opposite party and they are even signed by the official of the Opposite party. Therefore, the endorsement and the sworn statement of the complainant to to show that she had on 05.02.1992 given application to the Opposite party intimating them of her change of address. These documents since are not either controverted or rebutted it has to be held that the complainant had given representation regarding change of her address. The complainant has even stated that the Opposite party noted down the change of address in the concerned register maintained by the Opposite party. The Opposite party though have produced the concerned original file, but that concerned register has not been produced. In the file no doubt we are not finding the representations given by the complainant to them for change of address. For that, we cannot blame the complainant nor infer that the complainant had not given such intimation at all. The Opposite party who have not denied the endorsement issued by it’s office and having regard to the contents of that endorsement, we have no hesitation to hold that the intimation given by the complainant regarding her change of address have not been taken note of by the Opposite party.<br /> 9. The learned counsel representing the Opposite party invited our attention to paper publication and also a notification displayed on the notice board of their office and argued that the complainant was given sufficient opportunity, but, she did not turn up, as the result, the allotment came to be cancelled. No doubt, the Opposite party shown to had published an item calling notifying the allottees to collect the allotment letters, failing to do so would results in cancellation. But, individual intimation of allotment since is a mandatory merely because such publication was made in our view will not absolve the Opposite party from the responsibility of making their endeavor to send individual notice to the allottees to their appropriate address. In the instant case, as made out by the complainant, she had intimated her change of address to the Opposite party but did not make efforts to see that the allotment letter is sent to her later address.<br /> 10. It is found from the postal cover in which allotment letter was sent to the complainant that the postal authorities have returned the post with a shara that no such addressee is in that door number, therefore when the Opposite party received such endorsement from the postal authorities, they could have searched for the change of address given by the complainant before they cancelled the allotment. It is on consideration of all these materials facts placed before us, we find that the Opposite party have failed to maintain proper account of the particulars pertaining to allotment of sites in favour of this complainant and they have caused deficiency in not noting down the change of address of the complainant and by cancelling the site allotted in favour of the complainant. As the result, the complainant is entitled for relief, of direction for allotment of a site as such we answer this point in the affirmative and pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> 1.The Complaint is allowed in part.<br /> 2.The Opposite party are directed to allot a site measuring 6 x 9 meter in Devanur extension if site is available if not an alternative site in any of it’s already developed layouts within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order at the same rate that was prevailing when site was allotted to the complainant on 14.07.2003 by collecting all other necessary legal fee.<br /> 3.The Opposite party shall also pay cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant being the cost of this complaint.<br /> 4.Return the original file to the learned counsel for the Opposite party. <br /> 5.Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />