HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The complainant/respondent booked a residential flat with the petitioner in its “Midtown Unique Apartment Scheme”, 1989 and deposited an amount of Rs.4,51,860/- after taking a loan from HDFC Ltd. The petitioner had given permission to the complainant to mortgage the flat with HDFC Ltd. 2. Vide letter dated 19.10.1993, the complainant surrendered the allotment and sought refund of the amount which he had deposited with the petitioner. A cheque of Rs.4,51,860/- dated 24.01.1994 was sent by the petitioner to HDFC Ltd. and was encashed by the said company on 18.02.1994. The case of the petitioner is that the said amount should have been paid to him instead of paying it to HDFC Ltd. He therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint. 3. The complaint was resisted by the complainant on the ground that since a mortgage in favour of HDFC Ltd. was granted, they were justified in making payment to HDFC Ltd. 4. Vide its order dated 19.07.1997, the District Forum allowed the Consumer Complaint and directed refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs.4,51,860/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2,000/-. 5. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission. 6. No one has been appearing for the respondent in this matter and the respondent/complainant therefore, was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 20.09.2016. 7. In my opinion, since the amount deposited by the complainant with the petitioner authority was raised by him after taking a loan from HDFC Ltd. on the basis of the mortgage permission granted to him by the petitioner, there was nothing wrong in refunding the said amount to the financer HDFC Ltd. In fact, the financer HDFC Ltd. had a lien on the said amount, it having extended that amount as a loan to the complainant after the mortgage permission had been obtained by him from the Authority. Had the complainant taken the loan without any mortgage permission from the petitioner, he would have been justified in asking for refund to him, but the said amount having been paid by him after taking loan on the basis of the mortgage permission, the petitioner Authority was absolutely justified in protecting the interest of the financer by paying the said amount to it. Having already refunded the amount to HDFC Ltd, the petitioner cannot be directed to make payment to the complainant as well. 8. I fail to appreciate why the petitioner should have any objection to the refund of the amount in question to HDFC Ltd. when he had raised that amount from HDFC Ltd. as a loan, on the basis of the mortgage granted in favour of the said company. It appears to me that the complainant did not want to pay the whole or part of the dues of the HDFC Ltd. and that is why he went to District Forum for a direction to the petitioner to make the payment directly to him. The complainant did not even implead HDFC Ltd. as a party to the complaint though he knew it very well that the amount in question had been paid by the petitioner Authority to the aforesaid company. 9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the same are set aside. The Consumer Complaint is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs. The amount deposited by the petitioner with the District Forum pursuant to the interim order passed by this Commission, be refunded to the petitioner alongwith interest which may have accrued on that amount. | 
