HUDA & ANR Vs. RAJENDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal for these applications are that the respondent filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner authority alleging deficiency in service on its part regarding the allotment of plot No.51 in Mandi Township, Bhiwani. The complaint was contested by the opposite party.

(2.) The District Forum on consideration of pleadings and the evidence allowed the consumer complaint and directed thus: -

(3.) We do not find merit in the above explanation. Admittedly, the petitioner HUDA came to know about the dismissal of the revision petition in default in the year 2014 and Sh. Raktim Gogoi was requested to move application for restoration vide office memo no.3239 dated 2.9.2014. The petitioner has tried to blame Sh. Raktim Gogoi, Advocate for not filing of the restoration application but it is not explained if Sh. Raktim Gogoi, Advocate did not file the restoration application, why the petitioner HUDA kept on waiting and did not take corrective steps by engaging some other counsel for moving the application. The conduct of the petitioner in this case is grossly negligent. Therefore, we do not find any justification in the request for condonation of delay.