Skip to main content

Maytas told to refund money to customers & Banks criticised - Consumer Commission

In an order that will send a warning signal to fraudulent developers and errant bankers, the AP state consumer disputes redressal commission told M/s Maytas Properties Pvt Ltd to refund the entire amount it had collected from three aggrieved customers, who paid hefty amounts ranging from Rs 50 lakh to Rs 80 lakh towards flats in the company's proposed Hill County venture at Bachupalli in Rangareddy district.

Though the flats were not constructed, the banks granted loans to customers and handed over the total money to Maytas and started deducting the same from the customers. Blasting the banks for releasing amounts despite construction having not taken place at Maytas Hill County, the commission said, "You (banks) have to release the loan amount in a phased manner based on the progress of the construction. In the current case, you gave the amount to developer without the latter making any progress in construction of flats,'' the commission said, and directed the banks to stop forthwith collecting EMIs from the customers. The commission also warned the banks, who threatened to take customers to CIBIL, over non-payment of EMIs. "Instead of customers, the banks should be referred to CIBIL for their erroneous functioning in this case," the commission said.

Warning the bankers that they cannot threaten the customers that their names will be referred to CIBIL, the consumer commission made it clear that it is the names of the banks that have to be referred to CIBIL for their erroneous functioning in the current matter.

Earlier, three customers, Ravikanth Veda, Kalidindi Jhansi Lakshmi, Neravati Rajasekhar, approached the commission and sought justice in the case. They narrated how they were let down by Maytas and their bankers, Axis Bank, ING Vysya Bank and Deutsche Post Bank Home Finance Ltd. which they said acted in an inhuman and irrational manner despite knowing the fact that the customers being victims in the entire episode.

The state consumer disputes redressal commission, comprising its presiding member M Shreesha and another member S Bhujanga Rao, ordered the Maytas and the banks to refund the entire amount to customers with 12% interest per annum along with a compensation of Rs one lakh and Rs 10,000 towards legal costs.

The commission rejected the claims of the current management of Maytas which has been repeatedly citing the pending case before company law board. The customers are not a party to that and hence it is not binding on them, the commission said. The banks have suppressed certain rules and are unnecessarily highlighting an irrelevant authorization given by the customers to recover EMIs from the customers. Banks have released the amounts contrary to the tripartite agreements reached between the developer, customer and the bank, the commission said. Hence the banks should suffer the consequential losses for not applying due diligence before relying on a developer merely basing on the brand value of the developer in the beginning, the commission's presiding member Shreesha, who wrote the judgment, said in her order.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Maytas-told-to-refund-money-to-customers/articleshow/20836741.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...