AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 238 wordsTHE impugned order is dated 3.2.2012. The revision petition was filed in this Commission on 14.8.2012. The certified copy was obtained for a period of 134 days. The certified copy has been filed on record, which reveals that the certified copy was obtained on 5.4.2012. The written synopsis was also placed which mentions that Mr. SatenderS. Gulatihad prepared and signed this case on 18.4.2012. In the list of dates, it is mentioned that the certified copy of impugned order dated 3.2.2012 was received on 16.6.2012. There are contradictions in all these points. The counsel for the petitioner submits that it is clerical and typographical mistake. This appears to be a serious matter.
UNDER the circumstances, we hereby direct the Registrar, Haryana State Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission, Panchkulato explain when the free copy was given to both the parties, when the certified copies were given to both the parties. The Registrar is further reminded to prepare a new stamp with the following items: ''''1. Case No.
Date of disposal
Date of giving free copy to both the counsel
Date of dispatch
Date of giving certified copies
It appears that the Registrar is not discharging its functions as per law. He is hereby warned to be careful in future otherwise the matter will be brought to the higher authorities. His report is awaited. Notice besent to both the parties returnable on 16.10.2014 for further arguments.