Objection handled: borrower separated from the person who wanted the money (call 1 of 2)

A walk-in where the son did the talking, the mother owned the flat, and the pension was going to carry a 27,530 EMI against a 34,200 income. The RM set the borrower-speaks-for-self rule in the first minute and held it, established that the need was the son’s and the risk was the mother’s, and stated plainly that she would not recommend the loan even if it were sanctioned. She then rebuilt it: son as primary applicant on his 7.08 lakh ITR, mother as co-applicant and property owner, with a reduced amount and an unsecured business loan as alternatives. Floating-rate reset, LTV, non-refundable legal-technical charges, the business end-use foreclosure exception and the difference between mandatory property insurance and optional life cover were all covered before anyone signed anything.

“Rs 25,00,000 requested against a flat valued informally at Rs 85,00,000 · indicative 10.40% p.a. floating, benchmark-linked, reset quarterly · 15 years · indicative EMI Rs 27,530 · pension income Rs 34,200/month · no application submitted — structure sent back for rework”