Case Title: JHV Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Shyam Singh
Case Number: F.A. No. 886/2015
In a significant verdict by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, it was ruled that the source of funds used for payment is irrelevant if the property allotments are made in the name of the complainant. This holds true even if the complainant is a Non-Residential Indian (NRI), as per the order given by presiding officers Mr. Subhash Chandra and member Sadhna Shanker.
The case revolved around an NRI complainant who had booked a flat from JHV Construction, paying a booking amount of Rs. 2,78,300 towards the total price of Rs. 27,83,000. An allotment letter, complete with a payment schedule, was issued to the complainant. However, despite receiving an advance payment of 10%, the builder failed to execute the registered agreement and deliver possession on time.
Due to these circumstances, the complainant sought help from the State Commission, which ruled in their favor. The builder was directed to hand over possession to the complainant and was also asked to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 25,000 as litigation costs.
Unhappy with the State Commission’s verdict, the builder appealed to the National Commission. They argued that the complainant, being an NRI and having paid only a small portion of the total amount, did not qualify as a consumer. The builder also claimed to have cancelled the allotment due to non-payment of the remaining amount.
However, the National Commission pointed out that the builder failed to provide any proof of communicating the cancellation of allotment to the complainant. The builder’s claim that the cancellation was informed to the complainant was contradicted by the absence of any issued cancellation letter.
The Commission also made note of the fact that the builder couldn’t present any evidence to indicate that the complainant was involved in buying and selling properties for profit. This led the Commission to refer to its previous judgment in “Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jaikrishan Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.”, where it was ruled that the burden of proving such allegations lies with the builder.
In conclusion, the Commission found that all the receipts and the allotment letter were in the complainant’s name. They emphasized that the source of funds is of no consequence in this matter. The Commission dismissed the builder’s appeal and upheld the order of the State Commission.
This decision underscores the importance of the consumer’s rights regardless of their residential status or the source of funds, and serves as a reminder to builders to uphold their commitments in a timely manner.
