Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 06.08.2001 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow in Appeal No.01/SC/1998. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly modified the order dated 16.12.1997 passed by the District Forum disposing the complaint. 2. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and the respondent in person and have considered their submissions. All the directions / stipulations given by the District Forum and as modified by the State Commission have been realized and only lease deed of the plot in question remains to be executed in favour of the respondent / complainant. The same is not being done as according to the Ghaziabad Development Authority the entire lease amount of the plot in question has not been received and there is an outstanding balance of Rs.12,700/-. According to the respondent, he had deposited the said amount vide a receipt no. 2351 dated 3/2/1997. The Ghaziabad Development Authority was confronted with this receipt and the Joint Secretary, GDA has filed an affidavit clearly stating that the documents sought to be relied upon by the respondent as receipt of payment of the amount is not a receipt of payment of any amount received by the GDA but is simply a slip (parchi) issued by the concerned dealing clerk to the complainant / respondent authorizing him to deposit a sum of Rs.12,700/- in the bank account of the GDA. The receipt looks like as under: 3. Respondent states that he had actually handed over the amount of Rs.12,700/- to the concerned clerk who had issued the above referred receipt / parchi but he is unable to give the name of the said official. On the other hand, Mr. D.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to a receipt dated 27.12.89 issued by the Vijaya Bank on behalf of the Ghaziabad Development Authority by which the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.21,165/- with the Ghaziabad Development Authority. This would show that from the year 1989 onwards Ghaziabad Development Authority had a system under which they were receiving payments due to them from allottees of the plots etc. through bank only. Going by the heading of the above document, ‘Dhamrashi jama karane ki parchi’ (our emphasis is on parchi), we must presume that it is not the actual receipt of the payment made by the complainant to the Ghaziabad Development Authority but was only an authorization issued by an officer of the Ghaziabad Development Authority to the respondent to deposit the amount in the account of the Ghaziabad Development Authority in the Bank. 4. Having said so, the fact remains that complainant had parted with a sum of Rs.12,700/- by paying it to the concerned clerk under the assumption that he was authorized to receive the payment and the receipt ( parchi) issued was a proper receipt of the payment made by him. That being the position, it would be harsh on the respondent who appears to be an of elderly person of little means, if we call upon him to deposit the amount again with GDA. In these peculiar facts and circumstances, we are of the view that petitioner – GDA should waive of the said amount and should not insist for its payment again. We order accordingly. GDA will execute Lease Deed of the plot in question in favour of the respondent on completion of due formalities within a period of four weeks. Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 06.08.2001 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow in Appeal No.01/SC/1998. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly modified the order dated 16.12.1997 passed by the District Forum disposing the complaint. 2. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and the respondent in person and have considered their submissions. All the directions / stipulations given by the District Forum and as modified by the State Commission have been realized and only lease deed of the plot in question remains to be executed in favour of the respondent / complainant. The same is not being done as according to the Ghaziabad Development Authority the entire lease amount of the plot in question has not been received and there is an outstanding balance of Rs.12,700/-. According to the respondent, he had deposited the said amount vide a receipt no. 2351 dated 3/2/1997. The Ghaziabad Development Authority was confronted with this receipt and the Joint Secretary, GDA has filed an affidavit clearly stating that the documents sought to be relied upon by the respondent as receipt of payment of the amount is not a receipt of payment of any amount received by the GDA but is simply a slip (parchi) issued by the concerned dealing clerk to the complainant / respondent authorizing him to deposit a sum of Rs.12,700/- in the bank account of the GDA. The receipt looks like as under: 3. Respondent states that he had actually handed over the amount of Rs.12,700/- to the concerned clerk who had issued the above referred receipt / parchi but he is unable to give the name of the said official. On the other hand, Mr. D.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to a receipt dated 27.12.89 issued by the Vijaya Bank on behalf of the Ghaziabad Development Authority by which the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.21,165/- with the Ghaziabad Development Authority. This would show that from the year 1989 onwards Ghaziabad Development Authority had a system under which they were receiving payments due to them from allottees of the plots etc. through bank only. Going by the heading of the above document, ‘Dhamrashi jama karane ki parchi’ (our emphasis is on parchi), we must presume that it is not the actual receipt of the payment made by the complainant to the Ghaziabad Development Authority but was only an authorization issued by an officer of the Ghaziabad Development Authority to the respondent to deposit the amount in the account of the Ghaziabad Development Authority in the Bank. 4. Having said so, the fact remains that complainant had parted with a sum of Rs.12,700/- by paying it to the concerned clerk under the assumption that he was authorized to receive the payment and the receipt ( parchi) issued was a proper receipt of the payment made by him. That being the position, it would be harsh on the respondent who appears to be an of elderly person of little means, if we call upon him to deposit the amount again with GDA. In these peculiar facts and circumstances, we are of the view that petitioner – GDA should waive of the said amount and should not insist for its payment again. We order accordingly. GDA will execute Lease Deed of the plot in question in favour of the respondent on completion of due formalities within a period of four weeks. | 
