Complainant/petitioner applied for housing loan from the respondent bank.  Respondent sanctioned house loan of Rs.3,95,000/- but did not disburse the same, as on verification the bank was not satisfied with the security offered.  Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the complaint, which was dismissed by the District Forum by observing thus :

“During the pendency of complaint complainant in his complaint with amendment put pleading that on not making payment to the sellers with time limit of six months the seller firm got vacated the suit house from the complainant.  On the basis of the said amendment complainant eliminated the relief to pay the granted loan amount and demanded other compensatory amount.  On the basis of amendment pleading of if it is held that  the six months time limit was fixed to pay the amount of suit house and on this ground sellers got vacated the house from complainant then it is clear from former behaviour remained of the complainant with it complainant himself is at fault.  The complainant after disputed sale deed dt. 14-2-2008 Ex. A-1 did not execute the amended sale deed within time limit of the notice Ex. A-8 and A-9 given by the non-applicant and after one of disputed sale deed 14-2-2008 got executed the amended sale deed Ex. A-2 on 3-3-2009.  Amended sale was not proved to submit before non-applicant.  Thus non-applicant had sufficient grounds in not paying the granted loan amount to complainant whose detail particulars has been given previously.  So any d efficiency in service by non-applicant bank was not proved.  Hence complainant have no right to get any relief as stated in the complaint.”

Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by observing thus :

“The respondent-Bank had sanctioned loan against the security offered by the appellant but upon verification of the security, since the Bank was not satisfied it refused to disburse the loan amount.  The Bank has not acted capriciously and given reason for not disbursing the loan amount that the ownership of the house had been acquired by seven persons in their individual capacity and not by the firm.”

We agree with the view taken by fora below.  The bank was not obliged to disburse the sanctioned loan, as the petitioner failed to furnish the required security documents.  There was no deficiency on the part of the respondent bank.  Dismissed.