NCDRC Rules Allotments in Buyer's Name for NRIs Legal, Source of Funds Irrelevant

NCDRC Rules Allotments in Buyer’s Name for NRIs Legal, Source of Funds Irrelevant

June 20, 2024

( NCDRC ) The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, under the leadership of Mr. Subhash
Chandra and Sadhna Shanker (member), has ruled that the origin of the funds used for payment
holds no significance if the allotments are made in the complainant’s name, regardless of their
NRI status.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The complainant, an NRI, booked a flat from JHV Construction/builder for Rs. 27,83,000 and paid a booking amount of Rs. 2,78,300. Despite issuing an allotment letter with a payment schedule, the builder failed to execute the registered agreement and deliver possession on time, despite accepting a 10% advance payment. Acting through a General Power of Attorney holder, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission, which ruled in their favor. The State Commission directed the builder to offer possession to the complainant along with Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 25,000 as litigation costs. Dissatisfied with this ruling, the builder appealed to the National Commission.

CONTENTIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY

The builder contested that the complainant, being an NRI, did not qualify as a consumer as he invested a small amount in purchasing the flat. Additionally, it was alleged that the complainant only paid ₹2,78,300 and failed to pay the remaining amount due, leading to the cancellation of the allotment of the booked premises.

OBSERVATIONS BY THE COMMISSION

The commission noted that the builder failed to provide any document demonstrating that a cancellation letter regarding the allotment was communicated to the complainant. It was emphasized that although the builder’s affidavit stated the cancellation of allotment was communicated, no such cancellation letter was issued. Furthermore, the commission highlighted that if the period is counted from the letter, the complaint falls within the limitation period. The commission also noted the builder’s inability to produce documentary evidence proving that the complainant was engaged in purchasing and selling plots. Referring to its judgment in Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jaikrishan Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., the commission reiterated that the burden of proof rested on the builder, which it failed to discharge.

The commission noted that receipts were issued in the complainant’s name, and the allotment letter was also addressed to them. Emphasizing the irrelevance of the source of money, it was acknowledged that the allotments were made in the complainant’s name, irrespective of their NRI status.

As a result, the Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the State Commission’s order.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in