HYDERABAD: In a major setback for realty firm Maytas Properties Ltd (MPL) and kin of scam-tainted Satyam founder B Ramalinga Raju, the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (APSCDRC) has issued bailable warrants against them after they failed to comply with an earlier April 2012 order of the commission awarding compensation to a clutch of aggrieved Maytas Hill County property buyers.
The order, issued by APSCDRC president Justice D Appa Rao on Thursday, has directed the managing director of MPL, formerly promoted by the Raju family but now controlled by IL&FS group, Raju's younger son Byrraju Rama Raju as well as two other Raju kin Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju and Datla Venkata Satya Subba Raju to be present before the commission on October 29, 2012.
The latest order was issued in response to a plea filed by four aggrieved Maytas Hill County buyers for enforcement of the state commission order of April 2012 after MPL representatives and Raju kin failed to comply with the order that had directed them to repay the property buyers along with the compensation awarded.
If they do not appear before the state commission on the specified date then non-bailable warrants could be issued against them.
Incidentally, MPL had challenged the earlier APSCDRC order awarding compensation to the aggrieved property buyers in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in June this year but failed to get a stay on it.
In its April 2012 order, APSCDRC had directed the erstwhile Ramalinga Raju kin promoted company to repay the money it had taken from nearly 57 aggrieved buyers of the Hill County Project along with an interest of 12% per annum from the time it took the money from the buyers to the time it repays it back.
The three-member bench headed by Justice Appa Rao had in the order also directed MPL to pay a Rs 1 lakh compensation and costs of Rs 10,000 to each property buyer. The state commission had also ordered banks like Axis Bank, State Bank of India, ICICI Bank and IDBI Bank, that had extended home loans to Hill County buyers, to directly recover the disbursed amounts from MPL instead of the beleaguered buyers as some banks had given loans directly to MPL though the property was not constructed, and after the scam came to light, were asking borrowers to pay EMIs on the loans instead of recovering money from MPL.