Allotments In Buyer's Name Despite Being An NRI Is Legal, Source Of Funds Irrelevant: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Sadhna Shanker (member), held that the origin of the funds used for payment is inconsequential if the allotments are made under the complainant's name, even if the complainant is an NRI. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant booked a flat from JHV Construction/builder for Rs....
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Sadhna Shanker (member), held that the origin of the funds used for payment is inconsequential if the allotments are made under the complainant's name, even if the complainant is an NRI.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant booked a flat from JHV Construction/builder for Rs. 27,83,000 and paid a booking amount of Rs. 2,78,300. An allotment letter with a payment schedule was issued. However, the builder failed to execute the registered agreement and deliver possession on time despite accepting an advance payment of 10%. The complainant, an NRI, managed the purchase through a General Power of Attorney holder. Subsequently, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission, which allowed the complaint. The Commission directed the builder to offer the possession to the complainant along with Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.25,000 as litigation cost. Aggrieved by the State Commission's order, the builder appealed to the National Commission.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
The builder contested that the complainant was not a consumer because he was an NRI who invested a small amount to purchase the flat. It was further alleged that the complainant paid only ₹2,78,300 and did not pay the remaining amount due. Consequently, the builder cancelled the allotment of the booked premises.
Observations by the Commission
The commission observed that the builder could not produce any document showing that a cancellation letter regarding the allotment was communicated to the complainant. The commission highlighted that the builder's affidavit clearly stated that the cancellation of allotment was communicated to the complainant, but no cancellation letter was issued to them. The commission emphasized that if the period is counted from the letter, the complaint is within the limitation period. The commission observed that the builder could not produce documentary evidence to prove that the complainant was engaged in purchasing and selling plots. The commission highlighted its judgment in Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jaikrishan Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., which placed the burden of proof on the builder to establish the same, which was not discharged.
The commission observed that the receipts were issued in the complainant's name, and the allotment letter was also issued in their name. The commission emphasized that the source of money was irrelevant, and it was undisputed that the allotments were made in the complainant's name even if he was an NRI.
Consequently, the Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the State Commission's order.
Case Title: JHV Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shyam Singh
Case Number: F.A. No. 886/2015