ORDER : Sunita Sharma, (Presiding Member) 1. Present appeal is filed against order dated 23.11.2017 passed by learned District Commission, Solan in consumer complaint No. 77/2015. Brief facts of consumer complaint: 2. The case of the complainant in brief is that after going through the advertisement published by opposite party and terms and conditions of brochure, she had applied for Category-II 2BHK flat with parking under PSFC at Kasumpti, Shimla. A letter dated 14.1.2014 was received from opposite party on 22.1.2014. In the letter, it was mentioned that person, who had applied for flat/plot under advertisement dated 27.11.2013 can exercise the choice @ 6% on or before 31.12.2013 and interested persons were requested to deposit choice money on or before 21.1.2014 for allotment of particular unit out of tentative left out unit. It was further mentioned that after the exercise of choice, it is presumed that site has been seen and there would no objection afterwards. Only one and first choice will be considered. No conditional choice will be accepted. Choice money deposited will not be refunded, if allottee withdraws after allotment of unit or allotment is cancelled subsequently. Allotment will be made in accordance with terms and conditions of the scheme. As per the complainant, date of choice of making option had been extended to 21.1.2014. Letter was posted under speed post by the office of opposite party on 20.1.2014 under receipt No. EE-972100571 and it was delivered to complainant on 22.1.2014, i.e. after expiry of date of making choice option. She was deprived of an opportunity of exercising her choice for a particular flat in HMUDA Colony, Kasumpti. In this behalf, she had written letter dated 25.1.2014 to opposite party and further requested to afford an opportunity to exercise choice, but same was not allowed. According to complainant, she received allotment letter dated 7.2.2014 from opposite party. She was allotted Category II Flat 1, in Block No. 30 in Housing Colony Kasumpti subject to deposit of 10% of tentative cost of Rs. 5,04,000. As per the complainant, when she did not receive any reply from opposite party, then she sought information from it under Right to Information Act, but she was not provided any information. She lost her right to exercise the choice resulting in loss to her. 5,04,000. As per the complainant, when she did not receive any reply from opposite party, then she sought information from it under Right to Information Act, but she was not provided any information. She lost her right to exercise the choice resulting in loss to her. Had the letter dated 14.1.2014 posted on 20.1.2014 well in time, she could have exercised her choice, but due to negligence of opposite party, she could not exercise her choice. An appeal was also filed before State Information Commission. Hon'ble State Information Commission while disposing of second appeal concluded that matter can be agitated before Consumer Court, as it is a dispute arising out of a contractual obligation. As per the complainant, if she was allowed to exercise her option, then she would get flat of her choice on top floor, the value of that flat would have been more than the flat which was allotted to her. Therefore, she is entitled for loss caused by opposite party. She had also filed a Writ Petition before Hon'ble High Court of HP. Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 30.12.2014 ordered to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to file representation before the competent authority. A direction was issued to decide the same within six weeks. Representation was rejected with the observations that, keeping in view, the request of petition to provide opportunity to exercise choice afresh and conduct the draw of lots cannot be considered at this stage, as there is no such provision in allotment rules and by doing so, it will increase the litigation. There is deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint. 3. Complaint was contested by the opposite party by filling reply taking preliminary objections therein regarding maintainability, cause of action, estoppel, jurisdiction, suppression of material facts and that the complaint is barred by limitation. On merits, it is pleaded that opposite party advertised for allotment of the flats vide advertisement dated 22.11.2013. As per advertisement, complainant had to mention her choice in the application form. She did not exercise her option for a specific flat and only mentioned the category of flat. She had sufficient time to exercise her choice well before 31.12.2013. Letter dated 14.1.2014 was posted by opposite party at the available address of complainant and the same was duly received by her. She did not exercise her option for a specific flat and only mentioned the category of flat. She had sufficient time to exercise her choice well before 31.12.2013. Letter dated 14.1.2014 was posted by opposite party at the available address of complainant and the same was duly received by her. After receiving letter dated 25.1.2014, complainant was given opportunity to exercise her option for available flats and to deposit 6% of choice money in PSFC Colony Kasumpti, but she did not respond. There was no negligence and carelessness on the part of opposite party. Other averments have been denied. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed. 4. No rejoinder was filed on behalf of complainant. 5. Learned District Commission partly allowed the complaint and opposite party was directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000, besides litigation charges of Rs. 3,000 within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which it would carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. 6. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned District Commission, HIMUD A filed present appeal before State Commission. 7. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and we have also heard Mr. Vijay Garg, representative of respondent through Video Conference and we have also perused entire record carefully. 8. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that complainant had to mention the choice in the application form itself and she did not exercise her option of specific flat, but only mentioned the category of flat. He further argued that after receipt of letter dated 25.1.2014, the complainant was given an opportunity to exercise her option for available flats and to deposit 6% of choice money in PSFC Colony Kasumpti, but she did not respond. He also argued that there was no negligence and carelessness on the part of appellant. 10. Per contra, authorized representative of respondent argued that complaint has been allowed partly, though it should have been allowed in toto. 11. We are unable to accept the arguments addressed by learned Counsel for the appellant because letter dated 14.1.2014 was received from opposite party on 22.1.2014. 10. Per contra, authorized representative of respondent argued that complaint has been allowed partly, though it should have been allowed in toto. 11. We are unable to accept the arguments addressed by learned Counsel for the appellant because letter dated 14.1.2014 was received from opposite party on 22.1.2014. In the letter, it was mentioned that person, who had applied for flat/plot under advertisement dated 27.11.2013 can exercise the choice @ 6% on or before 31.12.2013 and interested persons were requested to deposit choice money on or before 21.1.2014, but said letter was delivered to complainant on 22.1.2014 i.e. after expiry of date of making choice option and due to the negligence of appellant, the complainant lost her right of exercising her choice for a better flat in HIMUDA Colony, Kasumpti. 12. We have perused the letter dated 7.2.2014, which was sent by the appellant in favour of complainant which was letter of Allotment of Cat-E, Hat No. 1, Block 30 under Partially Self Financing Scheme in Housing Colony at Kasumpti and this letter cannot be taken as further opportunity for the complainant to exercise her option for available flat. It is only a letter of allotment and terms & conditions annexed therewith are general in nature. Thus, in view of above stated facts, we find no merit in the appeal and order passed by learned District Commission below does not warrant any interference from this Commission. Point No. 1 is decided accordingly. Point No. 2: Final Order 13. In view of findings given on point No. 1 above, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copy of order be sent to learned District Commission for information forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending applications if any also disposed of.