Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

(1)                This appeal is filed by original Complainant whose complaint has been dismissed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District by judgement dated 19.04.2010. 

(2)                Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:

Complainant filed consumer complaint against Chief Officer(E.M.1), Mumbai Housing & Area Development Board.  According to Complainant he had applied for getting tenement with the Opponent Builder.  His Application Number was 288135 dated 22.06.1990.  Along with application he had deposited Rs.200/-. As per MHADA board the lottery was to be drawn on 21.04.1992 at 08.30 a.m. in Drive-in Theatre, Kalanagar, Bandra, Mumbai.  Accordingly he attended the said Drive-in Theatre on 21.04.1992, but, he was told by the officer present that because some writ petition has been filed lottery could not be drawn on that day.  Hence, he left the said ground.  He was expecting the letter of intimation from the MHADA about next date draw of lottery.  He was not given any intimation, hence, he filed consumer complaint in the Forum below bearing No.556/2001.  But, there was some technical mistake, he was required to withdraw the said complaint and ultimately on 23.04.2002 he filed present complaint claiming the reliefs that Opponent should be directed to give him plot of land since he had been deprived of attending the lottery draw of MHADA.

(3)                Opponent appeared and contested the matter by filing written statement.  Opponent denied that they had intimated Complainant that because of someone filing writ petition and obtaining stay, they had postponed the lottery on 21.04.2002.  According to Opponent the lottery was drawn on the same date and since Complainant was not successful in the said draw of the lottery he was given refund of the booking amount.  MHADA pleaded that complaint filed by Complainant is absolutely barred by limitation and as such it should be dismissed with costs.

(4)                On the basis of affidavits and documents placed on record, the District Forum held that the complaint as filed by the Complainant was within the limitation in as much as District Forum noted in its order that the complaint was filed with condonation of delay application and that condonation of delay application was in fact allowed and delay was condoned and therefore, the point of limitation is not at all surviving in the complaint, though it is taken by the Opponent/Respondent.  District Forum also pleaded that the lottery was in fact drawn on the fixed date and in that lottery the Complainant proved to be unsuccessful.  He was informed accordingly and he was even given refund of the booking money back to and therefore, District Forum held that there is no substance in the complaint and as such it stood dismissed as per order dated 19.04.2010.

(5)                None is present for the Respondent.  Upon hearing Advocate Mr.Wavikar, for the appellant we are finding that there is no substance in the appeal.  The grievance of the Complainant appears to be that on 21.04.1992 the lottery was not drawn, whereas it is the contention of the MHADA that draw of the lottery was held at the same place on the same day and since Complainant was unsuccessful he filed false complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the MHADA.  We are finding that the order passed by the Forum below appears to be just and proper.  It is sustainable in law and there appears to be no substance in the appeal.  Hence, we pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

         (i)          Appeal stands summarily rejected.

       (ii)          No order as to costs.

     (iii)          Inform the parties accordingly.