The complainants applied to the respondent Union Bank of India for grant of a home loan.  The case of the complainants is that they had offered plot No.63 in BHIST BANG, Ahmad Nagar as a security for the loan sought by them.

(2)     Vide letter dated 20.10.2015 issued by its regional office, the bank sanctioned a loan to the complainants but against security of two plots i.e. Plot No.62 as well as Plot No.63 at Bhist Bang, Ahmad Nagar.

(3)     Vide letter dated 31.10.2015 the complainants wrote to the bank stating that they had offered, as security, only plot No.63 and a fresh sanction will therefore be required, deleting plot No.62.  Thereupon, the concerned branch manager, vide letter dated 05.11.2015, intimated the complainants

..2/-

-2-

as under :

“In reference to your letter mentioned above we would like to clarify that Plot No.62 has been included with Plot No.63 (as per search report) and the area also differs in the RLCC Sanction letter.  The error cannot be rectified now since the sanctioning authority is the Regional Office.

Security available under this Loan facility will be available for other Loan facilities also.  The grant of other Loan facility will entirely depend upon the viability of proposal and satisfaction of competent authority.

Kindly handover the Original Title Deed to Mr. Niraj Kumar.  We hereby request you to get the execution of documents promptly for equitable mortgage.”

(4)     On receipt of the aforesaid letter, the complainant instead of insisting on the deletion of plot No.63 from the sanction, availed the loan by executing the requisite documents, creating equitable mortgage in respect of both the plots.

(5)     The complainants thereafter applied for sanction of a business loan in May, 2017.  Since the bank did not promptly sanction the said loan, the complainants had to repay the home loan taken from the bank in order to get their plots released so that they could take business loan from another bank.  After paying the home loan taken by them, the complainants took a business loan from a society at a higher interest.  Alleging deficiencies on the part of the bank in rendering services to them, the complainants are before this Commission by way of this Consumer Complaint.

(6)     As noted earlier, the sanction letter issued by the regional office of the bank clearly stipulated grant of loan against mortgage of both the plots i.e. plot                                                                                             …3/-

-3-

No.62 and 63 at Bhist Bang, Ahmad Nagar.  The complainants were fully

aware of the said condition, they having immediately written to the bank on 31.10.2015, seeking deletion of plot No.62.  Even the branch manager, vide his letter dated 05.11.2015 did not agree to delete plot No.63 from the sanction issued by the regional office and it was pointed out to the complainants that the error could be rectified only by the sanctioning authority, which was the regional office in this case.  Instead of insisting upon deletion of plot No.63 from the sanction, the complainants went ahead with availing the loan, which the regional office of the bank had sanctioned subject to the equitable mortgage of both the plots.  If the complainants were not willing to offer plot No.62 also as a security for the loan applied by them, they ought not to have availed the home loan sanctioned by the regional office without first deletion of the said plot from the sanction letter.  They having availed the loan which was conditional to mortgage of both the plots, the bank cannot be said to be deficient in rendering services to them.  It is not known whether or not the regional office would have actually sanctioned the loan on the basis of the mortgage of only one of the two plots owned by the complainants.  It would also be pertinent to mention here that there was a composite title deed of both the above referred plots in favour of the complainants and the mortgage with the bank is created by deposit of title deed.

(7)     It is the submission of the learned counsel for the complainants that they availed the home loan because of the assurance contained in para 2 of the letter dated 5.11.2015.  On a careful perusal of the said paragraph it is evident that though plot No.62 would have been available

….4/-

-4-

as a security for a future loan facility, there was no commitment from the bank to sanction another loan facility to the complainants.  It was clearly stated in the said letter written by the branch manager that the grant of the other loan facility would be depending upon the viability of the proposal and satisfaction of the competent authority.  Therefore, the bank cannot be said to be deficient in rendering services to the complainants merely because they did not sanction the second loan desired by the complainants within the time the complainants wanted the second loan.

          For the reasons stated herein above, no case of deficiency on the part of the Bank in rendering services to the complainant is made out.  The Consumer Complaint being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.