AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Subodh S. Patil, Counsel for the appellant.
The above appeal has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana at Hyderabad dated 20.03.2023 passed in CC/46/2019 whereby the State Commission has allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to refund an amount of Rs.923731/- to the complainant and compensation of Rs.50000/- and litigation cost of Rs.20000/- to the complainant and also directed the opposite party to clear the entire loan taken by the complainant from State Bank of India/opposite party no.4.
The office has submitted report that appeal has been filed with delay of 41 days. The appellant has filed IA No.9791/2023 for condoning the delay. Subject to objection if any and for the reasons given in the IA, the IA is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
The only grievance of the appellant in this case is that the State Commission has wrongly directed the opposite parties to clear the loan account of the complainant. Instead of it, the entire money has to be handed over to the complainant. Admittedly, the appellant has taken loan from State Bank of India for which a Tripartite Agreement has been executed between the complainant, opposite party no.1 to 3 and State Bank of India. The property of opposite party no.1 to 3 i.e. the flat allotted to the complainant has been mortgaged for grant of the loan. Therefore, the appellant has created a charge over the flat in dispute. Now, the appellant is taking refund of his money, therefore, the property should be redeemed from mortgage and free of charge. The State Commission has directed opposite party no.1 to 3 to clear the loan account of the complainant. Since the appellant has created a mortgage over the property, therefore, the appellant can have no objection in getting the property redeemed from the mortgage. The order impugned does not suffer from any illegality, the appeal has no merit, it is dismissed.