Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Petitioner issued a Notification inviting applications for allotment of houses proposed to be constructed by it at Amroor.  Respondent/complainant applied for allotment of MIG house proposed to be constructed.  He paid a sum of Rs.1,000/-as EMD along with the application.  Because of change in his address, he had sent a letter to the petitioner informing it about his new postal address, which, seemingly was not recorded in the file of the respondent. Later on, petitioner sent a letter to all the interested parties including the respondent, informing that the cost of flat would be Rs.1,20,000/- and those who are interested will have to pay EMD amount of Rs.11,000/- on or before 31.12.1990 failing which it will be presumed that he/she is not interested in the allotment of the house.  As the communication sent by the petitioner did not reach the respondent, the respondent failed to deposit the new EMD amount and his name was not included in the draw of lots.

          Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging that he has not received any letter from the petitioner on his now address, because of which, he failed to pay Rs.11,000/- and his name was not included in the draw of lots.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, the respondent prayed for appropriate relief.

          District Forum allowed the complaint filed by the respondent and directed the petitioner to allot house of MIG-II to the respondent on the stipulated price of the house and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation and costs of Rs.500/-.

          Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission confirmed the order passed by the District Forum except that it reduced the amount of compensation to Rs.5,000/- from Rs.10,000/-.

          Being aggrieved with the order passed by the State Commission, present Revision Petition has been filed.

          Notice was issued to the respondent.  Notice sent to the Respondent was received back with the remarks ‘expired’.  Thereafter, Notice was issued to the Legal Representative of the respondent.  Respondents are not present but have sent written submissions. 

On 21.4.2009, the petitioner was directed to place a copy of the Scheme as also the number of applicants, who had applied for the Scheme and the number of persons, who were actually allotted the houses after draw of lots in terms of the said Scheme.  The petitioner was directed to place it before this Commission along with an affidavit of the Housing Commissioner of A.P. Board before the next date of hearing.  Case was adjourned to 28.4.2009.  On 28.4.2009, the petitioner again took time.  The case was adjourned for today.  Counsel for the petitioner states that in spite of being informed, petitioner has not come forward to file the affidavit or the documents as per directions issued on 21.4.2009.  Counsel submits that as per petitioner, affidavit and documents cannot be filed, as the record is very old.  We are not satisfied with the explanation given.  The matter was under litigation and petitioner should have preserved the record till the final disposal of the case.  In our opinion, this is defiance of the order passed by this Commission and we are inclined to draw an adverse inference against the petitioner.  Dismissed.