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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.