Delhi District Court
M/S Icici Bank Ltd vs Kamal Kumar Lajpat on 16 April, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARVEEN SINGH, ADMINISTRATIVE
CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH WEST), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
.
Suit No. : 208/09
M/s ICICI Bank Ltd.
Having Registered Office at:
''Landmark'', Race Course Circle,
Vadodara390007.
Having Branch Office at:
S.D. Tower, Sector8, Rohini,
New Delhi. ...Plaintiff.
Versus
Kamal Kumar Lajpat,
S/o Sh. Lajpat,
R/o H. No. 4/40, Gali No. 4,
Brahampuri, Delhi53.
Also at:
H32, Gali No. 5,
Braham Puri,
Delhi110053. ...Defendant.
Date of Institution : 19.02.2009.
Date of Arguments : 02.04.2012.
Date of Judgment : 16.04.2012.
Suit No. 208/09 No. 1 of 4
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.2,44,350/
JUDGMENT:
1. The present suit for recovery of Rs.2,44,350/ has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiff is a bank and is a body corporate incorporated and registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is further submitted that the defendant approached the plaintiff bank for financial assistance to enable him to purchase a vehicle Qualis/ B5 under the loan and hypothecation scheme of the plaintiff bank. The request of the defendant was duly considered and on 01.06.2007, a loan of Rs.2,28,500/ was sanctioned. The defendant agreed to repay the said loan alongwith interest in 36 equated monthly installments of Rs.8,377/ each. The defendant executed a credit facility application form dated 01.06.2007 in favour of the plaintiff bank, deed of hypothecation, irrevocable power of attorney. The vehicle of the defendant registered with the registration authority with registration no. DL4CV 0028 was hypothecated in favour of the plaintiff bank in terms of loan documents. It is further submitted that after availing the said loan from the plaintiff bank, the defendant failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement regarding repayment of amount either towards principal or towards the interest or charges thereon. It is further submitted that several ESC instructions issued by the Suit No. 208/09 No. 2 of 4 defendant for repayment of loan were dishonoured or returned unpaid. Several reminders were issued to the defendant to pay the outstanding loan amount but to no avail. The plaintiff company finally issued a demand notice dated 02.01.2009 calling upon the defendant to repay the entire outstanding amount and to hand over the peaceful possession of the vehicle which is hypothecated to the bank under the agreement. However, despite the receipt of the notice, the defendant failed to comply with the notice. It is further submitted that as per the account maintained by the plaintiff, the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,44,350/ towards principal, interest and other charges. Hence, the present suit.
3. Summons for settlement of issues were issued to the defendant and the same were served upon the defendant. However, when the defendant failed to appear, he was proceeded exparte by my learned predecessor vide order dated 17.07.2010. Thereafter, the plaintiff led its exparte evidence and examined Sh. Arun Chaudhary, attorney of the plaintiff bank as PW1.
4. PW1 Sh. Arun Chaudhary, attorney of the plaintiff bank deposed on the lines of the plaint and proved the original credit facility agreement, deed of hypothecation and irrevocable power of attorney as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.Pw1/3, certified statement of account as Ex.PW1/4, copy of termination of notice alongwith postal receipt as Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6 and the copy of letter dated 02.02.2009 as Ex.PW1/8.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record Suit No. 208/09 No. 3 of 4 very carefully.
6. As the testimony of PW1 has been entirely unrebutted and unchallenged, I have no reasons to disbelieve the same. In view of the above, the plaintiff has become entitled for a decree. As regards the interest, there is a clause that in case of defaults, the rate of interest would be 24% per annum. However, the same is an exaggerated rate of interest and is a penalty clause and the penalties cannot be enforced under Indian Contract Act. However, considering that the defendant has defaulted in making the payment to the plaintiff, I am of the opinion that it will be equitable if interest @ 11% per annum is granted to the plaintiff. Thus, a decree of Rs.2,44,350/ alongwith interest @ 11% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization, is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court (PARVEEN SINGH)
on 16.04.2012. ACJCUMARC NORTHWEST
(This judgment contains four pages and ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
each page bears my signature.)
Suit No. 208/09 No. 4 of 4