ORDER Ravi Shankar, Judicial Member. - The appellant/complainant filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated:27/08/2020 passed by Mysore District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.202/2019, which dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant. 2. The brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant had applied for site measuring 30 X 40 ft at Devanur Extension Mysore on 06.03.1991 and paid requisite fee when she was residing at # 363/C, behind Kamakshi Hospital, Kuvempunagr, Mysore. After transfer of her husband to Badravathi as he was a Doctor, she shifted her residence and the same was intimated to the Opposite Party on 30.08.1994 showing her new residential address and if any correspondence is made, that can be correspondence to the new address and also obtained acknowledgment in that regard. Later during 2018 she came to know that the site bearing No.2558 measuring 30X40 situated at Devanur Extension, 3rd Stage, Mysore was allotted to her on 14.07.2003 itself and the same was communicated to the address mentioned in the application and not to the address communicated subsequent to the transfer of the husband of the complainant, immediately she issued a legal notice alleging deficiency in service and requested the Opposite Party to allot the site which was originally allotted to the complainant, but the Opposite Party have not allotted the site. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission with a prayer to direct the Opposite Party to allot the site. 3. After trial, the District Commission dismissed the complaint for the reason that the Opposite Parties have intimated the allotment of site to the address shown in the application and also intimated the members by publishing the same in the news paper that those who have not received the allotment letter, can approach the Opposite Party for allotment of the site. Even in spite of publication of the said intimation, the complainant has not come forward. Hence, the allotment was cancelled and on that ground, the complaint was dismissed. 4. We have heard the arguments of appellant. Appellant also filed written arguments. In spite of service of notice, the respondent did not appear before this Commission. 5. Even in spite of publication of the said intimation, the complainant has not come forward. Hence, the allotment was cancelled and on that ground, the complaint was dismissed. 4. We have heard the arguments of appellant. Appellant also filed written arguments. In spite of service of notice, the respondent did not appear before this Commission. 5. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order and documents produced before the District Commission, we noticed that it is an admitted fact that the complainant had applied for 30X40 ft site at Devanur Extension by paying the requisite fee. Subsequently, she intimated the Opposite Party/Authority about the change of address and also requested to made correspondence to the new address with regard to the site. Anyway, the site was allotted to the complainant and allotment letter was sent to the address shown in the application only and not to the new address as intimated by the complainant. Instead of that, the Opposite Parties have taken a paper publication and called all the aspirants who have not received the allotment letter can approach them for allotment of the site. 6. The learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that the Opposite Party had published regarding allotment of sites in favour of the aspirants in a news paper which was circulated within the city limits of Mysore, whereas the complainant was residing at Badravathi and hence the complainant had no knowledge about publication of allotment of sites in the news paper. In-fact, the complainant had requested the Opposite Party to make correspondence to the new address on 31.08.1994. In spite of that, they have not communicated with respect to the allotment of site. Hence, prays to set-aside the order passed by the District Commission. 7. We are of the opinion that the Opposite Parties ought to have intimated the complainant with respect to the allotment of site to the address both mentioned in the application and subsequent address which she requested to make correspondence, but they have not done so. This is a clear case of deficiency in service and negligence. We also agree with the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for appellant/complainant that she has no knowledge about the paper publication which was published within the city limits of Mysore. Hence, the complainant is entitled to get the site which was allotted in her favour. 8. This is a clear case of deficiency in service and negligence. We also agree with the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for appellant/complainant that she has no knowledge about the paper publication which was published within the city limits of Mysore. Hence, the complainant is entitled to get the site which was allotted in her favour. 8. During the course of arguments, the counsel for complainant submits that the original site bearing No.2558/e measuring 30X40 ft situated at Devanoor Extension, 3rd Stage, Mysore was not re-allotted to any other person and it is still vacant. Hence, prays to allot the same in favour of the complainant. The Opposite Party has not appeared before this Commission in spite of receipt of notice from this Commission. when such being the case, we have no hesitation to direct the Opposite Party to allot the said site in favour of the complainant by receiving the prescribed fee for allotment of site and registration. The District Commission has made an error in not appreciating the deficiency in service rendered by Opposite Party in not serving the allotment letter to the new address given by the complainant. Hence, the impugned order passed by the District Commission dismissing the complaint is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:- :ORDER: The appeal is allowed. No costs. The impugned order 27/08/2020 passed by Mysore District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in C.C.No.202/2019 dismissing the complaint is set-aside. Consequently, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to allot the site bearing No.2558/e measuring 30X40 situated at Devanur Extension, 3rd Stage, Mysore which was original allotted in favour of the complainant by receiving prescribed fee for allotment of site and registration. The Opposite Party is directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.