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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...