PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER 1. This first appeal has been filed by Delhi Development Authority (DDA), Appellants herein and Opposite Party before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission which had allowed the complaint of Vas Dev, Respondent herein and Original Complainant before the State Commission. 2. FACTS: Respondent had contended that he registered for a Middle Income Group (MIG) flat under the Appellant New Pattern Housing Registration Scheme, 1979 and deposited a sum of Rs.4500/- for this purpose. Since he was transferred to Suva, Fiji for a period of 3 years on a Government of India assignment, he informed Appellant about the same vide letter dated 21.12.1983 and also furnished the fresh address with the request that further correspondence be made at this address. He was allotted Priority No. 26269 under the scheme. After waiting for about 10 years, during which time no allotment of an MIG flat to him materialized, Respondent came to know in 1989 that Appellant had a provision for the registrants under the 1979 Scheme for conversion of their registration from MIG to Self-Financing Scheme (SFS) and he, therefore, requested the Appellant for change of registration to the SFS. Appellant agreed to his request and as directed by the Appellant he deposited Rs.500/- as processing fees for conversion from MIG to SFS and also complied with other formalities, including sending the required documents alongwith a letter dated 15.05.1989. Vide letter dated 13.09.1989 Respondent was informed that his request for conversion had been accepted and the transfer/adjustment of registration money from MIG to SFS would be worked out by the concerned office in due course. When Respondent contacted Appellant office he was initially informed that his file had been misplaced and, therefore, he provided documents to help in its reconstruction. Thereafter, he was informed that the original file had been traced and according to it he was not considered for registration under SFS since he did not pay the stipulated amount of Rs.11,326/-. Respondent was shocked since he did not receive any communication in this respect and he, therefore, made a number of representations, including to the Vice Chairman, DDA. He was thereafter advised by a telegram, which he received on 03.07.1995, that he could apply under a new 8th SFS, the last date being the next day i.e. 04.07.1995 when the scheme closed. He subsequently received another communication informing him that the closing date had been extended to 29.07.1995. He thereafter vide his letter dated 10.07.1995 informed the Appellant that he would accept the offer provided the cost of the flat is charged at the rate prevalent for the same size flat in 1989. Since he did not receive any communication for the same and he was informed during a personal meeting that it may not be possible to allot him a SFS flat since conversion proceedings were never completed, he again requested for consideration for an MIG flat with the same priority number as he had in 1989, which was declined by the Appellant vide letter dated 22.08.1995. Being aggrieved by the gross deficiency in service on the part of Appellant in not handing over possession of the MIG flat for which registration had been made in 1979 and thereafter not agreeing to the conversion from MIG to SFS category and finally rejecting his request for reversion for allotment of a MIG category flat, Respondent filed a complaint before the State Commission and sought the following reliefs :- i) To allot a flat to and in the name of the complainant under SFS scheme against his registration No. 551 under HUDCO 1979 and to pay the complainant the damages to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. (ii) Or in the alternative, to direct the OP to pay to the complainant the difference of the cost of the flat prevailing in the market in comparison to the price in 1989 along with refund of the amount deposited by the complainant with interest and to pay to the complainant the damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. 3. Appellant on being served filed a written rejoinder stating that it was not possible to immediately allot the MIG flat to the Respondent, for which he was registered in 1979, because over a lakh of people had applied under the scheme and the construction of the flats was being done in stages. Respondent Priority No. 26269 was quite low in the list of registrants. Thereafter he changed his mind and requested for allotment of a flat under SFS category. Respondent never paid the differential amount of Rs.11,326/- for changing his registration from MIG to SFS. Respondent contention that he did not receive the letter dated 06.03.1990 because it was sent to a wrong address is not correct since the said letter was never returned undelivered by the postal authorities. Appellant also denied that they had misplaced the original file of the Respondent. In fact, even though Respondent did not deposit the amount of Rs.11,326/-, following his representations, his case was processed and he was given another chance to apply for allotment of SFS flat under the 8th SFS and it was mentioned in the telegram that the last date was 04.07.1995. However, when the date was extended to 29.07.1995, Respondent was again sent a letter on 14.07.1995 clearly stating this fact. Respondent did not apply for the SFS under the 8th SFS and requested for reverting his registration again from SFS to MIG which was declined as there was no such provision available under Appellant Housing Schemes or under the terms and conditions of the allotment/brochure etc. Thus, there was no deficiency in service. 4. The State Commission after hearing the parties and on the basis of evidence produced before it, allowed the complaint and directed the Appellant to pay the Respondent a lump sum compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs by observing as follows: 2. In our view there is no documentary evidence produced by the OP to show as to how much difference of payment he was required to make. According to the OP the complainant was informed that he had to make payment of Rs. 11,362/- but he never made the payment and as consequence the allotment was cancelled. 13. Be that as it may the fact remains that the complainant who was abroad was not only made to wait for ten long years from 1979 to 1989 after his request for conversion of MIG to SFS category was acceded to but at the same time the OP was guilty of not informing the complainant as to the difference of amount which he was to make as the alleged telegram never reached the complainant. 14. The objection that the complaint is barred by limitation has no substance as cause of action in such like cases is of continuing and subsisting nature and continues till the grievance is redressed by the service provider through written communication. 15. Now the situation is that there is no flat available nor priority of the complaint either in the MIG or in the SFS category is available as the priority expired in the year 1999. The grievance of the complainant is that demand letter dated 6th March 1990 was depatched at the wrong address and was never received by him whereby the OP had demanded payment of Rs. 11,326/-. 16. Taking overall view of the matter and holding the OP guilty for deficiency in service in not sending the communication at the appropriate address available on record which was a changed address and also not intimating the complainant about the difference of payment to be made, we deem that lump sum compensation of Rs. 2 lacs shall meet the ends of justice for the loss suffered by the complainant. 5. Being aggrieved by the above order, the present first appeal has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for both parties made oral submissions. 7. Counsel for the Appellant reiterated that allotments of MIG flats under the 1979 scheme were being made as per the priority list and it was under these circumstances that the Respondent whose Priority Number was quite low did not get this flat early and in the meantime he opted for conversion of registration from MIG to SFS which was agreed to. A letter was sent at the address given by the Respondent to pay sum of Rs.11,326/- which he failed to do. Even when he was given a second chance vide letter dated 14.07.1995 to apply for the 8th SFS, he did not pay any heed to the said advice and asked for conversion of the registration from SFS to MIG which was rightly declined since there was no such provision under any of the terms and conditions of allotment or under the Housing Scheme. It was further contended that since the Respondent had not paid any amount towards registration of the flat, he was not a onsumeras defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Under the circumstances, the State Commission erred in allowing the complaint and awarding the compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs. 8. Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand stated that did the Respondent did not receive the letter dated 06.03.1990 from the Appellant informing him to pay Rs.11,326/- since as is evident from the letter on record (page 35 of the paper-book) that the Appellant had sent it to a blatantly incomplete address where even the house number was not mentioned. Since Appellant was responsible for this lapse, which ultimately resulted in the Appellant not agreeing to the request for conversion of the registration from MIG to SFS at the 1989 rate and also not agreeing subsequently to reconsider his request for MIG flat as per his priority number in 1979, the Appellant was grossly negligent and guilty of deficiency in service and the State Commission had rightly awarded him compensation for the same. 9. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties and gone through the evidence on record. Respondent applying under the Appellant scheme of 1979 for allotment of an MIG flat and his not being able to get the same for several years is not in dispute. It is also an admitted fact that he made a request for conversion of his registration from MIG to SFS and this was agreed to by the Appellant on his paying the processing fees. It is also an admitted fact that the Appellant subsequently did not consider Respondent under the scheme stating that he did not pay the sum of Rs.11,326/- which was necessary for the conversion of his registration from MIG to SFS. Respondent has explained this by stating that he did not receive the letter sent by the Appellant as it was not sent to the correct address. We find substance in this contention of the Respondent because from the evidence on file, namely, the letter from the Appellant dated 06.03.1990, wherein the demand for Rs.11,326/- had been raised, the address is blatantly incomplete. It is addressed to as Dev, Poorvi Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026 Punjabi Bagh is a huge colony and in the absence of writing the house number, namely, 3, Madan Park it was virtually impossible for the letter to have reached the Respondent. Appellant contention that it should be deemed to be served since it was not received back under the circumstances is not acceptable. Thereafter, while it is a fact that Respondent request for conversion to SFS was refused following several personal meetings and representations, we note that the telegram sent to him with the advice to apply for the 8th SFS was received only a day prior to the closure of the scheme, because of which it was not reasonable for Appellant to expect him to respond within less than 24 hours. Of course the last date for applying under the 8th SFS was later extended to 29.07.1995. However, since it was a new scheme Respondent sought some clarification/confirmation whether he would be charged as per the rates application for the earlier scheme from the Appellant, to which he did not receive any response. It was under these circumstances that he requested for restoration of his application for allotment of an MIG flat as per his priority number, which, we note, also not agreed to by the Appellant. 10. From the above facts, it is apparent that the Appellant had been both negligent and tardy in dealing with this case on number of occasions, including in not sending the important letter dated 06.03.1990 demanding Rs.11,326/- from the Respondent for conversion from MIG to SFS to his actual address, thereafter misplacing Respondent file and subsequently giving him very little time to consider the option for applying under the new scheme i.e. 8th SFS and also not giving him the required clarification because of which he had no option but to seek reversion to the MIG scheme. The State Commission after considering all these facts had rightly arrived at the finding that the Appellant was responsible for making the Respondent wait for several years and thereafter since no flat was now available either in the MIG category or in the SFS category as the priority expired in 1989, there was need to adequately compensate the Respondent. We agree with the finding of the State Commission, including the compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs awarded to the Respondent which is reasonable and justified. 11. We, therefore, uphold the order of the State Commission and dismiss the present First Appeal. Appellant is directed to pay the Respondent the sum of Rs.2 Lakhs within one month from the date of this order. No costs.