1. This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission U T Chandigarh dated 17.04.2013 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the dismissal of his complaint by the District Forum was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the complainants had applied to respondent opposite party nos.1 & 2 for grant of housing loan against the allotment of a flat to them in urab Premium Apartments a project launched by GMADA (OP No.3). As per the scheme of GMADA, there were two payment plans for the consideration amount i.e. Plan-A & Plan-B. It is stated that complainants had applied for loan under lan-A The requisite documents as asked by Rajiv Arora of OP No. 1 & 2 were furnished from time to time. According to the complainants, their signatures were also obtained on some blank papers and unfilled proforma. On 28.06.2012, the area Manager of OP No. 1 issued sanction letter to the complainant stating that housing loan of Rs.30.00 lakhs has been sanctioned and the loan was payable in 60 monthly instalments alongwith fixed interest @ 10.70 for the first 35 instalments and at floating rate of interest linked to then LHPLR from 37th month onwards. The contention of the claimant is that despite completing all the formalities by them, the opposite parties unduly delayed the sanction and also that they refused to grant loan under plan-A. Claiming this to be deficiency in service, the petitioners filed consumer complaint in District Consumer Forum Chandigarh. 3. OP Nos.1 & 2 resisted the complaint and claimed in their W.S. that the complainants in the loan application did not mention that disbursal of loan was required under which plan. The approval from the sanctioning authority was received in the form of Advance Processing Facilities ( A.P.F.). It is also claimed that it was clearly mentioned in the sanction order that the disbursement of loan in individual cases will be as per Plan-B. OP No.2 sanctioned the loan of Rs.30.00 lakhs vide sanction letter dated 28.06.2012 which was duly signed by both the complainants after going through the terms and conditions. Therefore, it was pleaded that there was no deficiency of service. 4. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence on record, found no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents/OPs and dismissed the complaint with following observations:- fter going through the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the parties and perusing the documents on record, it has been made out that in the Sanction letter (Ann.C-2), it has been mentioned that:- HE AFORESAID SANCTION OF LOAN AMOUNT WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: APF CONDITION MAX LTV 80% APRIL-MAY-SALARY SLIP AND CREDIT MEENU AGARWAL, USUAL T & C UPDATED BANK STATEMENT OF APPLICANT WITH LATEST SALARY CREDIT Moreover, it is apparent that the complainants have not mentioned the Plan whether A or B. The sanction was given, subject to conditions and it was given for Plan B only, not for Plan A. The complainants are signatory to the terms and conditions. Resultantly, in view of the foregoings and entirety of the case, we are of the opinion that no deficiency in service is attributable towards the OPs. Therefore, the complaint lacks merit. The same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 5. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner approached the State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in appeal. The State Commission after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal with the following observations:- dmittedly, the loan was sanctioned to the complainants per the sanction letter (Annexture OP-1/C), which was duly signed by the complainants in which it was mentioned as under:- HE AFORESAID SANCTION OF LOAN AMOUNT WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: APF CONDITION MAX LTV 80% APRIL-MAY-SALARY SLIP AND CREDIT MENU AGARWAL USUAL T & C UPDATED BANK STATEMENT OF APPLICANT WITH LATEST SALARY CREDIT The said sanction was given under plan B only and not under Plan A as alleged by the complainants subject to certain conditions to which they (complainants) were also the signatories. This factum is also evident from Annexture OP-1/B. On the contrary, the complainants have failed to place on record any documentary evidence to show that they ever applied the loan under Plan A. Moreover, when the complainants were not willing to get the loan under Plan B then it is not understood as to why they affixed their signatures on the sanction letter aforesaid. In the absence of any tangible evidence, the submission of the counsel for the complainants, in this regard, being devoid of merit is rejected. Taking all these facts into consideration, we are of the considered view that the opposite parties were not deficient in rendering service. The order of the District Forum being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld 6. Learned Shri Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners has contended that orders of the foras below are not sustainable for the reason that they have failed to appreciate that the petitioners had not specified whether they were seeking allotment for making payment to GMADA (OP no.3) under plan A or plan B. Therefore, there is no justification on the part of the respondent bank to decline to release the amount of loan to the petitioners for making instalment payment against the terms of plan A. It is contended that the impugned order has been passed without careful consideration of evidence as such it is liable to be dismissed. 7. We do not find merit in the above contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. On perusal of the record, we find that both the foras below have returned concurrent finding holding that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondent. Orders of the foras below are well reasoned. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission by section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is very limited and the said jurisdiction can be exercised only if it appears that the foras below have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or it has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the orders of the foras below. As already mentioned that both the foras below have passed reasoned orders based upon the appreciation of the evidence, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 8. Otherwise also, on perusal of record we find that the petitioner in his application for grant of loan did not specify whether he wanted disbursement of loan for making payment to GMADA under lan-Aor lan-B The respondent opposite party did process the loan request and sanctioned the loan in favour of the petitioner. It, however, took a decision that disbursal of sanctioned loan shall be made in terms of the lan-Bof GMADA. On perusal of the office note approved by the concerned authority, copy of which is placed at page 80 of this file, it is clear that the sanctioning authority had taken a policy decision that disbursement in individual cases will be as per lan-Bprovided in the letter of intent. That being the case, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent bank particularly when the loan application was actually processed and loan was sanctioned. 9. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.