Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Mr.Gopi Chand on 21 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAM PRAKASH PANDEY
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH)
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 894/17
State Bank of India, a Body Corporate Constituted under the
State Bank of India Act, 1955, having its Head Office/Central
Office/Corporate Centre at State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama
Road, Mumbai 40024, one of its Local Head Office at 11, Sansad
Marg, New Delhi110001 and having one of its branch at
RACPC at A5, Pearl Best HeightI, Netaji Subhash Palace, New
Delhi
THROUGH ITS CHIEF MANAGER Sh.R.K.GARG
.........Plaintiff
vs
Mr.Gopi Chand
S/o Mr.Shiv Bachan Ram
R/oH.No.13/94, BlockG, Pocket13
Sector15, Rohini, Delhi110089
ALSO AT:
M/s Sindhi Chiken Centre
F3/62, Near Sanatan Dharm Mandir
Sector15, Rohini, Delhi110089
........Defendant
Date of filing of suit :11.10.2017
Date when reserved for orders :15.10.2019
Date of judgment :21.10.2019
In Appearance: Sh.R.K.Sinha and Sh.Abhijeet Dass,
Advocates, Ld.Counsels for the plaintiff.
None for Defendant (Exparte).
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1.This is a suit for recovery of Rs.6,82,989/ (Rupees Six CS No.894/2017 State Bank of India vs. Gopi Chand Page No.1 of 13 Lakh Eight Two Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Nine) alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 9.50% p.a. with monthly rest till realization filed by the plaintiff State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank") against the defendant Sh.Gopi Chand under Order XXXVII CPC.
2. It is pertinent to make a mention that vide order dated 06.08.2019 present suit was converted into ordinary suit instead of summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC, on the request of ld.Counsel for the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff's case, briefly stated, is that Sh.R.K.Garg, Chief Manager in State Bank of India situated at RACPC at A5, Pearl Best HeightI, Netaji Subhash Palace, New Delhi, is the constituted attorney/authorized officer of the plaintiff bank and is conversant with the facts of the present case and is authorized to file the present suit.
4. It is stated that plaintiff is a bank, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its head office at State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai 40024 and the branch amongst others at RACPC at A5, Pearl Best HeightI, Netaji Subhash Palace, New Delhi. The present suit has been filed through its CS No.894/2017 State Bank of India vs. Gopi Chand Page No.2 of 13 authorized representative/Chief Manager Sh.Rajesh Kumar Garg, who was duly authorized to act, appear, file, sign, verify depose the facts before the courts and to do all necessary acts on behalf of plaintiff bank by virtue of Power of Attorney executed in his favour by the plaintiff bank.
5. It is averred that on reorganization of set up of the State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Centre has been introduced/established by the plaintiff bank to deal exclusively with the Non performing Assets accounts of Branch of State Bank of India situated within Delhi/New Delhi for restructuring of the borrower and recovery of the amounts due against the said borrowers etc., hence the NPA accounts of the branches throughout Delhi have been transferred to RACPC at A5, Pearl Best HeightI, Netaji Subhash Palace, New Delhi for the convenience of operation and execution. Hence, RACPC at A5, Pearl Best HeightI, Netaji Subhash Palace, New Delhi in place of Rajdhani Enclave Branch, Delhi is filing the present suit.
6. It is averred that the defendant approached and requested plaintiff bank for financial assistance to enable him to purchase Hyundai Grand i10 car under SBI Auto Loan Scheme (car loan facility). His request was considered CS No.894/2017 State Bank of India vs. Gopi Chand Page No.3 of 13 and plaintiff bank agreed to sanction a sum of Rs.6,00,000/ (Rupees Six Lakh Only) for purchase of said vehicle on 14.10.2015. Defendant had executed various security documents along with post dated cheques in favour of the plaintiff against the sanction of loan.
7. The said loan amount along with interest @ 9.85% SBAR p.a. with monthly rests subject to rise and fall from time to time as per Banking Guidelines and penal interest over the agreed interest with monthly rest to be charged over the overdraft amount and overdue period, was repayable by the defendant in 84 equated monthly installments of Rs.9,914/. The documents were filled in, read over and explained to the defendant, who had signed the same voluntarily after understanding the contents of the loan documents.
8. It is averred that defendant duly availed the above mentioned car loan from the plaintiff by opening Term Loan Account No.35289114099. Thereafter defendant committed defaults in repayment of the loan amount, as a result of which, said loan account became irregular and sticky as he had failed to improve account position and did not adhere to with payment schedule.
CS No.894/2017State Bank of India vs. Gopi Chand Page No.4 of 13
9. Thereafter defendant failed to repay the EMI against the car loan and the same has been grossly out of order for a considerable period. Defendant was informed about this fact telephonically as well as personally being borrower and he (defendant) kept on assuring that he will contact the plaintiff bank to regularize the loan account. Since defendant failed to repay the equated monthly installments despite demands and further that his account was going in consecutive defaults, hence the same classified as NPA on 13.07.2016.
10. Various letters and reminders were issued to the defendant to regularize his loan account but to no effect. Legal notice dated 31.08.2017 was also issued to the defendant to pay the defaulted amount but failed to evoke any response from defendant. Defendant had also failed to inform the plaintiff bank about his status and present address being mandatory on his part.
11. It is submitted that the cause of action arose in favour of plaintiff when the agreement was entered between the parties and the loan was disbursed on 14.10.2015. The plaintiff bank is situated in Delhi, the defendant had approached the plaintiff bank with a request to grant a loan at Delhi. The loan documents were executed at Delhi and the loan amount was disbursed from Delhi. The CS No.894/2017 State Bank of India vs. Gopi Chand Page No.5 of 13 defendant is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, therefore, this court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
12. Since the defendant has signed various documents, he has thus admitted the liability towards the plaintiff bank.
13. It is averred that defendant had paid the last installment on 10.05.2016 and after giving adjustment, a sum of Rs.6,82,989/ (Rupees Six Lakh Eight Two Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Nine) as on 10.10.2017 is due and recoverable from the defendant.
14. It is prayed that a decree for a sum of Rs.6,82,989/ (Rupees Six Lakh Eight Two Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Nine) be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant together with cost, pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 9.50% p.a. with monthly rest till realization be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
15. Summons of the suit were sent to the defendant through ordinary process several times which were returned back unserved. Ultimately, the defendant got served by substituted mode of publication in daily newspaper 'The Rashtriya Sahara' dated 21.03.2019. Despite service CS No.894/2017 State Bank of India vs. Gopi Chand Page No.6 of 13 through publication, the defendant failed to put in appearance, therefore, he was proceeded exparte, vide order dated 06.08.2019.
16. Authorized Representative (AR) of the plaintiff got substituted with new AR Smt.S.Usha, vide order dated 30.08.2019.
17. The plaintiff bank was called upon to lead its evidence.
Plaintiff Bank examined PW1 Smt.S.Usha, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, RACPC, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi, who has testified on the lines of plaint through his affidavit Ex.PW1/1. She proved on record the documents which are copy of Power of Attorney as Ex.PW.1/A (OSR); originals of Loan Application and Proposal Forms Etc. as Ex.PW.1/B (Colly); copies of documents qua intended loan as Ex.PW.1/C (Colly); Original Appraisal cum sanction letter as Ex.PW.1/D; original Agreement of Term Loan signed and submitted by the defendant as Ex.PW.1/E; original AnnexureI signed and submitted by the defendant as Ex.PW.1/F; original arrangement letter as Ex.PW.1/G; notice u/s 13(2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 issued to the defendant as Ex.PW.1/H; other related documents such as Electronic Clearing CS No.894/2017 State Bank of India vs. Gopi Chand Page No.7 of 13 Service Mandate Form, photocopy of election I card and PAN Card of the defendant as Ex.PW.1/I (Colly); copies of legal notice and its original postal receipts as Ex.PW.1/J (Colly); copy of loan statements of the defendant as Ex.PW.1/K (Colly); original of the certificate under Section 2A and 65B as Ex.PW.1/L and original of the certificate of accrued interest as Ex.PW.1/M.
18. Vide order dated 30.08.2019, exparte PE was ordered to be closed, on the submissions of ld.counsel for the plaintiff bank.
19. The exparte final arguments have been heard. Sh.Abhijeet Dass, Advocate, Ld.Counsel for the plaintiff has argued in consonance with the plaint of the plaintiff bank and evidence led.
20. It is deposed by PW1 that the defendant approached and requested plaintiff bank for financial assistance to enable him to purchase Hyundai Grand i10 car under SBI Auto Loan Scheme (car loan facility). His request was considered and plaintiff bank agreed to sanction a sum of Rs.6,00,000/ (Rupees Six Lakh Only) for purchase of said vehicle on 14.10.2015. Defendant had executed various security documents along with post dated cheques in favour of the plaintiff against the sanction of loan. The CS No.894/2017 State Bank of India vs. Gopi Chand Page No.8 of 13 said loan amount along with interest @ 9.85% SBAR p.a. with monthly rests subject to rise and fall from time to time as per Banking Guidelines and penal interest over the agreed interest with monthly rest to be charged over the overdraft amount and overdue period, was repayable by the defendant in 84 equated monthly installments of Rs.9,914/. The documents were filled in, read over and explained to the defendant, who had signed the same voluntarily after understanding the contents of the loan documents. She has further deposed that defendant duly availed the above mentioned car loan from the plaintiff by opening Term Loan Account No.35289114099. Thereafter defendant committed defaults in repayment of the loan amount, as a result of which, said loan account became irregular and sticky as he had failed to improve account position and did not adhere to with payment schedule. Defendant was informed about this fact telephonically as well as personally being borrower and he (defendant) kept on assuring that he will contact the plaintiff bank to regularize the loan account. Since defendant failed to repay the equated monthly installments despite demands and further that his account was going in consecutive defaults, hence the same was classified as NPA on 13.07.2016.
21. She has deposed that various letters and reminders were CS No.894/2017 State Bank of India vs. Gopi Chand Page No.9 of 13 issued to the defendant to regularize his loan account but to no effect. Finally, legal notice dated 31.08.2017 was also issued to the defendant to pay the defaulted amount but failed to evoke any response from defendant. Defendant had also failed to inform the plaintiff bank about his status and present address being mandatory on his part.
22. After disbursement of loan and execution of security documents, defendant had paid certain amount with the plaintiff bank against the part payment of installment amount. Thereafter defendant failed to maintain financial discipline and neglected to operate the loan account bearing No. 35289114099 regularly.
23. She has then testified that after giving credits to amounts, paid by the defendant No.1 including the part payments, if any, to the plaintiff bank, a sum of Rs.6,82,989/ (Rupees Six Lakh Eight Two Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Nine) became due and recoverable from the defendant. The defendant committed defaults in repayment of term loan and did not pay any heed to the demands of the plaintiff to regularize the account.
24. She exhibited documents executed by defendant such as Loan Application of defendant, Ex. PW1/B; receipt for CS No.894/2017 State Bank of India vs. Gopi Chand Page No.10 of 13 booking amount & retail invoice issued by Hans Hyundai, copy of RC along with other documents, Ex.PW1/C (Colly); appraisal cum control report as Ex.PW1/D; loan cumHypothecation agreement Ex.PW1/E; arrangement letter for financing cards as Ex.PW1/G; certified copy of statement of account alongwith certificate under Banker's Book of Evidence Act, Ex. PW1/K and 17 and certificate of accrued interest as on 1010.2017 as Ex.PW1/M.
25. Testimony of PW1 Smt.S.Usha, Chief Manager of the plaintiff bank has remained unchallenged, unassailed and unrebutted as she was not crossexamined as the defendants chose to remain exparte. Therefore, I have no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1 and documents marked by him.
26. I have gone through the records and considered the submissions made by ld.Counsel for the plaintiff.
27. From the testimony of PW1 coupled with various documents which are Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/M, duly proved, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff bank has been successful in proving its case to the effect that the defendant had taken loan of Rs.6,00,000/ (Rupees Six Lakh Only) on 14.10.2015 for purchase of vehicle make Hyundi i10 car under SBI Auto Loan Scheme from CS No.894/2017 State Bank of India vs. Gopi Chand Page No.11 of 13 the plaintiff bank and had failed to repay and an amount of Rs.6,82,989/ (Rupees Six Lakh Eight Two Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Nine) has become due and recoverable for which the instant suit has been filed. He has defaulted in repayment and the suit amount is now due and recoverable as per the statement of account Ex. PW1/K which is duly proved.
28. In view of my findings recorded above, the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and is decreed. The plaintiff is held entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs.6,82,989/ (Rupees Six Lakh Eight Two Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Nine) alongwith costs of the suit from the defendant.
29. The plaintiff has claimed pendente lite and future interest @ 9.50% p.a at monthly rest from the date of filing of the suit till realization. As per loan cum hypothecation agreement Ex.PW1/E and arrangement letter Ex.PW1/G, the agreed rate of interest was 9.85% p.a, it being auto loan. Accordingly, I am of the view that grant of interest @ 9.50% p.a. will meet the ends of justice. The plaintiff bank is, therefore, held entitled to recover pendente lite and future interest @ 9.50% p.a. from the date of filing of the present suit till realization of the decretal amount. Cost of the suit is also awarded.
CS No.894/2017State Bank of India vs. Gopi Chand Page No.12 of 13
30. Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly.
31. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Digitally signed by RAM RAM PRAKASH
PRAKASH PANDEY
Date: 2019.10.22
PANDEY 11:28:15 +0530
Announced in the open Court (R.P. Pandey)
today i.e. on 21.10.2019 District & Sessions Judge (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi CS No.894/2017 State Bank of India vs. Gopi Chand Page No.13 of 13