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

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.