1. This Revision Petition challenges the order passed by State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short tate Commission in an appeal FA No. 196 of 2011 on 10/07/2012 dismissed the appeal on the ground of deficiency in service by the petitioner. 2. BRIEF FACTS in this case: The respondent/complainant registered DDA IG flat under higher purchase scheme, the New Pattern Registration Scheme NPRS -1979 floated by DDA. That on 31.7.2002 draw held and the turn of the priority number, the complainant was allotted a LIG Flat No. 157, Sector 17, Pocket-2, Block-C, Ground Floor at Rohini, Delhi and the demand cum allotment letter was sent to the complainant by post in the Block period of 26.09.02 and 01.10.02. The complainant on 1.2.2003 sent a letter to OP requesting for the change of allotment to other place on medical ground and requested for change of address for correspondence, that the Petitioner had considered a request of the complainant and informed the complainant that the request for the change of flat was turned down. Accordingly sent a letter dated 13.03.2003 at his changed address i.e. WZ-14/2 Gali No. 17 Sant Garh, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-18. In the same letter petitioner requested the complainant to pay the demanded amount and submit the required document as per the demand letter. However the complainant failed to do so, but complainant sent many reminders to DDA on 30.11.2003, 3.1.2004, 12.12.2005 & 2.2.2006. The DDA informed the Complainant On 24.04.2006 that this request for the change of flat was turned down. The complainant further asked to furnish the documents for refund of registration amount deposited by him with the OP. The Complainant also approached the Joint Director of the DDA who assured him that due change of the site would be provided to him, but the DDA has not informed him about the developments. However, the DDA has cancelled the allotment without sending any show cause notice, which is illegal, unlawful and arbitrary act of the DDA. Hence, a complaint No. 249/2007 was filed before The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II, Government of NCT of Delhi (in short as istrict Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Hence, against the said order the petitioner preferred First Appeal No.196/2011 in State Commission. 3. The State Commission heard the counsels of both parties and perused the records and evidence on file .The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since the amount has not been deposited, therefore, there is no question for the allotment of another flat to the complainant/respondent and has placed the reliance on Skyline Directors Pvt. Ltd & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. (2008) 8 SC page 265. In this case, it has been held by Honle Supreme Court that since the amount has not been deposited by the allottee of the flat allotted by the NOIDA authority, the flat cannot be allotted. But the State Commission held that the facts of this case are quite different as the controversy is that the allotment-cum-demand letter has not reached the complainant so as to deposit the amount mentioned in allotment-cum-demand letter. The counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on another case Poonam Verma and others Vs. Delhi Development Authority (2007) 13, Supreme Court cases page 154. In this case it has been held that if the scheme is closed, there is no question of any allotment. But State Commission observed that in the case before us there is no averment on the part of the OP/appellant that the scheme under which the allotment of the flat is made to the complainant/respondent is closed. In this connection no evidence has been filed. Therefore, the State Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of District forum as to allot a LIG flat to the complainant in same area, if lying vacant, or in area nearby, at its old rate of prices. OP is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- for causing mental agony and harassment to complainant since 2003 to till date and Rs.5000/- more as litigation charges to the complainant. 4. Aggrieved by the order of State Commission this Revision Petition was filed in this commission. We heard the both counsels who argued vehemently and perused the entire documents and evidence on record. 5. We have noticed the submissions of the appellant that Complainant vide its letter dated 01.02.2003 had requested for change of the allotment but his plea was turned down and a regular letter was sent on 13.3.2003 to the new address of complainant. The contents of same letter as follows: ir, Kindly refer to your letter dated 26/2/03 on the subject cited above. In this connection, I am directed to request for change of flat has been examined in detail but the same cannot acceded to as per existing Policy of DDA and requested to pay the demand amount and submit the required documents as per demand letter. Therefore, a show cause notice was sent to him on 28.07.2003 with request to furnish the bank challans towards the deposited amount within 15 days from the date of issue of this notice failing which allotment would be cancelled and thereafter, he was liable to apply for refund by furnishing the requisite documents. However, the Complainant failed to deposit the demanded amount. Therefore, the allotment was cancelled vide letter dated 09.10.2003. 6. As per the complainant submission it is noted that both the letters cited above dated 28.07.2003 and 9.10.2003 were sent to the old address of complainant which have never been received. But, no doubt Complainant himself was being a retired MCD (Municipal Corporation Delhi) worker and appears to be a prudent one. Hence he should have complied with the demands as per allotment letter and made payment of installments as per schedule in time to the DDA. It is pertinent to note that the complainant never bothered to remit the installment amount as per demand letter. Instead of paying a single installment he kept sending many reminders to DDA on 30.11.2003, 3.1.2004, 12.12.2005 & 2.2.2006. This is negligence of complainant himself. 7. The petitioner on 25.04.2006 sent a reply for the last representation of the Complaint dated 2.2.2006; that the matter was duly examined in detail by the competent authority but the request of the complainant could not be acceded to. And made a request to apply for refund of deposited amount by furnishing the original documents. 8. The case of the Complainant was examined in detail but could not be acceded to as he failed to deposit the cost of the flat within the stipulated period and despite issue of show cause notice. 9. Therefore in our opinion that State commission grossly erred in observing that the allotment cum demand letter was sent to the Respondent/Complainant at his old address and the same amounts to deficiency of service. Therefore, the question of the deposit of the amount mentioned in allotment-cum-demand letter does not arise in as much as the allotment-cum-demand letter has not reached the Complainant/ Respondent. On the contrary the respondent himself has filed the demand cum allotment letter along with the Complaint which was issued on 26.09.2002-01.10.2002. As per demand letter the flat No. 157, Sector 17, Block LIG Flat was allotted to the Respondent. 10. On perusal of the clause 28 of the brochure of the Petitioner the terms and conditions of the brochure is as under:- In case a registered person gets a flat in any locality once or the flat is surrendered/cancelled due to non-compliance of the requirements DDA obligation to allot the flat to him will be deemed to have been discharged. As per the clause the Respondent was aware that due to non-payment of the installment resulted the cancellation of flat. The Respondent did not deposit the monthly stipulated installment even after the deferred dates. 11. Therefore, the Respondent is not entitled to any relief. The Apex Court in the Judgment Sky Line Contractor Private Limited Vs. State of UP reported in 2008(8)SCC 264 wherein the Honle Supreme Court of India held that non-deposit of amount in stipulated period or unilateral deposit of demanded amount the Respondent was not entitled for allotment of the possession. 12. As the Complainant contented that at time of booking he was 35 years old and now at the time of allotment he is more than 60 years and not in a good health. To substantiate his contention he has not produce any health certificate or any evidence for the same. As such the brochure of petitioner did not show any such special provisions under which complainant request to be considered. 13. Therefore, considering the entire evidence and foregoing discussion we did not find the Petitioner has acted in an illegal manner therefore, we allow this Revision Petition by setting aside the order of the State Commission. With No costs.