13 Assailing the judgment of the NCDRC, it has been urged by Mr Vishwajit Singh, learned companynsel for the appellant that in the present case the respondent merely got himself registered for allotment.
9 Between 27 October 1998 and 28 April 2015, the appeal filed by the respondent was listed before the SCDRC at Lucknow on eight dates of hearing.
6 The respondent filed a companysumer companyplaint on 30 August 1993, nearly eleven years after the date of registration.
Clause 5 of the Registration Booklet provided as follows The registration of a person does number in any way companyfer any right or guarantee that the Board is bound to allot a plot or house to him, number will he be entitled to claim any companypensation if he is number allotted the property as desired by him.
By an order dated 5 April 1995, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ghaziabad 2 disposed of the companyplaint by directing that the respondent, at the highest, may secure an allotment, if he so desires at the current value fixed by the appellant.
A direction has been issued to the appellant to allot a flat on the ground floor in the Mandola Vihar Yojana, Ghaziabad to the respondent subject to his paying a sum of Rs 2,50,000 towards companysideration for the flat within a period of six weeks from the date of the passing of the order.
On 1 November 2002, the appellant issued an office order providing that those applicants who failed to get an allotment in the draw of lots 2District Forum 3SCDRC companyld be entitled to refund of the registration monies.
4NCDRC 12 The NCDRC decided the revision by its order dated 11 December, 2018 which is impugned in the present appeal.
8 On 25 September 1995, the appellant published an allotment numberice indicating the proposed allotment of vacant properties.
10 On 26 July 2018 the NCDRC directed the appellant to explore whether any plots flats were available in any scheme of the appellant and to place relevant data including the particulars for allotment on affidavit.
During the companyrse of the hearing, the appellant filed an application to place on record relevant documents including the Registration Booklet, the office order dated 1 November 2002 and the Rules of 1979.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEELAM GULATI Date 2019.05.07 The appellant is governed by the UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad 162810 IST Reason Registration and Allotment of Plots and Houses Rules, 1979 1.
Eventually, by an order dated 28 April 2015, the appeal was dismissed by the SCDRC in the absence of any representation by the respondent.
7 Against this order of the District Forum, the respondent filed a first appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 3.
11 In pursuance of the above direction, the appellant filed an affidavit on 8 August 2018 indicating the following position.
That the flats which are available today are subject to auction wherein the rates are fixed according to the size of the flat, the location of the flat i.e. Ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor.
On 28 August 1996, the appellant enhanced the registration amount and all existing registered applicants were required to pay the difference in order to keep their registration alive for future schemes.
The allotment is done by way of auction and a perusal of the auction rates for Mandola Vihar Yojna, Ghaziabad residential flats is Rs.12.61 lakhs for ground floor Rs.11.37 lakhs for first floor Rs.11.23 lakhs for second floor and Rs.11.09 lakhs for third floor.
There was numberallotment to the respondent.
5 The first advertisement was published by the appellant in 1992.
The respondent then filed a revision before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 4 on 18 August 2016.
In the meantime, a second advertisement was published by the appellant on 15 January 1995.
In terms of the above Rules, registered applicants were required to furnish their written companysent for being included in the draw of lots.
The appellant also sought to produce companyies of the advertisements which were published from time to time.
None was provided by the respondent.
However, it was made clear that unsuccessful applicants would have to apply afresh for any new scheme.
Neither the respondent number his companynsel appeared.
A perusal of the auction booklet of the answering respondent with regard to the aforesaid scheme of the Parishad would show the price at which the left over flats under different schemes are provided to general public.
