Haryana

StateCommission

A/355/2016

SUNCITY PROJECTS - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANDEEP CHHAHAR - Opp.Party(s)

V.S.BHARDWAJ

12 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     355 of 2016

Date of Institution:    25.04.2016

Date of Decision :     12.05.2016

 

1.      Suncity Township, Sector 34, Sonepat Road, Rohtak through its Incharge/Manager.

 

2.      M/s Suncity Project Private Limited, 1^st Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi through its Manager/Authorized Person.

                                      Appellants-opposite parties

 

Versus

 

Sandeep Chahar son of Bhoop Singh, resident of Ward No.17, Arya Nagar, Rohtak.

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                                                                

Present:              Shri Jagdeep Singh, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Pardeep Solath, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Suncity Township and another-opposite parties (for short, ‘builder’) have challenged the correctness and legality of the order dated March 18^th, 2016, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Sandeep Chahar-complainant was allowed on the statement made by Sh. Jimmy Rathi, counsel for the builder.

2.      During the pendency of the complaint, Sh. Jimmy Rathi made a statement on March 16^th, 2016 that builder was ready to allot alternate plot bearing No.D-2, Block D, Sector 35, Rohtak instead of original plot allotted to him bearing No.C-180, Sector 34.  It was also stated by the counsel that interest would be paid to the complainant at the rate of 9% on the amount deposited by him till its actual realization.  Not only that, it was further stated by him that in case of default, interest at the rate of 12% per annum would be paid. 

3.      The present appeal has been filed by the builder on the short ground that Sh. Jimmy Rathi, Advocate was not authorized to make any statement before the District Forum.

4.      Much sanctity attaches to the statement of a lawyer for a party made before the court.  Such statements are to be treated as statement of the party where the lawyer represents.  There is a clear authorization also from the party as contained in the Power of Attorney.  The ground pleaded before this Commission is therefore untenable and therefore, the appeal is dismissed. 

 

Announced 12.05.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK