ORDER

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral)- Admittedly, the respondent was declared successful in the draw held by the appellant in 1991 but allotment could not be conveyed because of stay orders of the High Court. However, appellant claimed to have sent subsequently demand-cum-allotment letter to the respondent on 14.10.1993 by registered post. But the respondent did not receive the same and, therefore, failed to make the payment as demanded and the allotment was cancelled and the plot was allotted to somebody else. Consequently, the respondent filed the instant complaint before the District Forum for restoration of the allotment.

2. Vide impugned order dated 4.2.2003 the District Forum found the appellant guilty for deficiency in service in not informing the respondent and not serving the demand-cum-allotment letter personally upon the respondent and directed it to restore the allotment at the price indicated in the letter dated 16.10.1993 on the same terms and conditions as contained therein and if the same plot is not available, some other plot of the near about same size be allotted.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

4. We have held in case after case that wh