B.B. VAGYANI, President: - This appeal filed by the unsuccessful O.P. is directed against the order dated 22 - 11 - 04 passed by the South Mumbai District Consumer Forum. Facts giving rise to this appeal are as under : - Respondent/org. complainant in response to the Scheme applied for allotment of Plot. Agreement was executed in November, 1999. Complainant deposited Rs.20,000/ - on 31 - 10 - 1999. She sought extension of lime for further payment. But she could not pay the remaining amount. CIDCO because of failure of further payment, cancelled the booking and forfeited the amount. According to the complainant, in case of surrender, of membership she can claim refund of deposit money and therefore, CIDCO is not entitled to invoke forfeiture clause. Failure to refund the amount in case of cancellation of membership is a deficiency Complainant filed consumer complaint no.341/2002 before the Forum below. 2. Said complaint was resisted by the CIDCO. CIDCO denied to have committed any deficiency in service. CIDCO has taken up the defence that amount is forfeited as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement. Forum below allowed the complaint and directed the CIDCO to return the amount of Rs.13,000/ - to the complainant together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of surrender of the membership till realization. 3. Forum. below allowed the CIDCO to forfeit the amount to the extent of 35%. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, CIDCO has come up in appeal. We heard the Ld. Advocate Mr. P. B. Kadam for CIDCO. Ld. Advocate Mr. Kadam vehemently submitted that the complainant is not permitted to withdraw or cancel the membership and therefore, the amount deposited by the complainant is forfeited taking into consideration the failure of the complainant to deposit further installments. In short he wants to submit that the amount has been forfeited as per the Rules and Regulations. In order to support his submissions, he relied upon the proviso of the New Bombay Disposal of Lands Regulations 1975, Chapter VI. 4. Copy of Agreement is placed on record. There is a clause in respect of surrender. This clause is scratched. However, no signatures are made. By clause no.11 of the Agreement, liberty is given to the allottee to surrender to allotment. 4. Copy of Agreement is placed on record. There is a clause in respect of surrender. This clause is scratched. However, no signatures are made. By clause no.11 of the Agreement, liberty is given to the allottee to surrender to allotment. In case of surrender by the allottee, the Corporation is permitted to forfeit 35% of the agreed lease premium and obliged to refund remaining amount. From the perusal of the record, particularly the letters written by the complainant to the Marketing Manager of CIDCO, it is clearly seen that the complainant asked for repayment of a deposit money. Therefore, it is beyond doubt clear that the complainant surrendered the allotment and prayed for refund of money. The Forum below relied upon clause no.11 of the Agreement and allowed the CIDCO to forfeit 35% of the amount deposited and directed the CIDCO to refund the remaining amount. Under - the circumstances, impugned order passed by the Forum below does not suffer from any illegality. 5. Rule 15 of Chapter VI of the New Bombay Disposal of Lands Regulations, 1975 permits the Corporation with previous approval of the Government, to relax any or all these regulations in special case or cases. It is emerged from the letters written by the complainant to the Chairman of CIDCO and Marketing officer of CIDCO that the complainant was badly in need of money for treatment of her father - in - law, who was a Cancer patient and mother - in - law who was under treatment for T.B. Complainant also wrote letter to the Government for refund of deposit money. But nothing was done. 6. Taking into consideration the urgent need of money of surrender of allotment, the CIDCO ought to have invoked Rule 15 of the New Bombay Disposal of Lands Regulations, 1975 and with the approval of the Government could have relaxed the conditions of the Agreement. The Management of CIDCO however failed to exercise the legitimate discretionary powers. This amounts to deficiency. Therefore the impugned order passed by the Forum below does not require any modification. Appeal filed by CIDCO is without any merits. In the result, we pass the following order : - ORDER 1. Appeal stands dismissed. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Pronounced and dictated in the open court. 4. Copies of the order herein to be furnished to the parties. Appeal dismissed.