PER SHRI S.M.SHEMBOLE, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.

This appeal is an exception to the judgment and order dated 10/03/2006 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Akola in Complaint No. 141/2005 allowing the complaint and directing the opponent including appellant Maharashtra State Co-operative Housing Finance Ltd. to release the mortgage deed to the respondent / org. complainant - National Forum For Consumer Education.

Brief facts, giving rise to this appeal, are that:-

Respondent No. 1/org. complainant National Forum for Consumer Education is a owner of disputed plot and it was mortgaged to respondent No. 2 Shilpakar Co-operative Housing Mortgage  Society barrowing Rs. 1,26,000/- by executing the mortgage deed. Thereafter said respondent No. 2/original opponent No. 2 sub- mortgaged the  same property to appellant Maharashtra State Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. original opponent No. 1.

As per agreement the respondent No.1/Complainant repaid the loan of respondent No. 2 Shilpakar Co-operative Housing Mortgage Society. However, he could not release the mortgage deed as it was sub-mortgaged to appellant/original opponent No. 1. Therefore, respondent No. 1 filed the complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Akola.

The Complaint was resisted by the opponent No. 1 and 2 contending inter alia that the balance amount of loan was not repaid, etc.

On hearing for both sides, the District Consumer Forum, Akola held that the complainant has repaid entire loan amount to opponent No. 2 Shilpakar Co-operative Housing Mortgage Society and therefore directed to release the mortgage deed.

Feeling aggrieved by that judgment and order, opponent No. 1 - The Maharashtra State Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. filed this in appeal.

We heard learned counsel Mr. Sourabh Joshi for the appellant and Mr. Gavande, authorized representative of respondent No. 1/original complainant. However, though the respondent No. 2 was duly served with notice but nobody turned up.  We perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, appeal memo etc.

The copy of impugned judgment and order clearly reflects that the respondent No. 1/complainant has already repaid the entire loan amount of respondent No. 2, taken against the property, in question. However, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent No. 2 has not repaid the loan amount to it and therefore appellant is not liable to release the property, etc. According to him, amount of Rs.28,000/- + interest as on date is due to recover from respondent No. 2. But this submission of learned counsel for the appellant can not be accepted. When the respondent No. 1/org. Complainant cleared the dues by making payment of entire loan amount to respondent No.2 to whom the property is mortgaged.  Now the complainant is entitled to get the mortgage deed return.  The complainant has no way concern with the dispute between the appellant and respondent No.2 – Shilpakar Co-operative Housing Mortgage Society. If any dues remained to be recovered from the respondent No.2, appellant - Maharashtra State Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. can recover it from respondent No.2. Therefore, we find no infirmity in impugned judgment and order. Hence, no interfere in the impugned order is warranted.

In the result the appeal is liable to be summarily dismissed. Hence, following order.

                                                                                                                      ORDER

1.Appeal is summarily dismissed.

2.No order as to cost.