Delhi District Court
Through Its Chief Manager Mr. Prem Kumar vs Lata Pruthi on 24 June, 2021
IN THE COURT OF Ms. HARLEEN SINGH, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-04
(WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No: Civ DJ. 235/18
Date of Institution: 26.02.2018
Date of decision: 24.06.2021
State Bank of India
A Body Corporate constituted under
the State Bank of India Act, 1955
having its Head Office/Central Office/
Corporate Office at State Bank Bhavan,
Madam Kama Road, Mumbai-440024,
one of its Local Head Office at 11,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi-01 and having
one of its Branches at Punjabi Bagh and
RACPC at 59, Community Center,
Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, Near
Payal PVR, Naraina, New Delhi-110028.
Through its Chief Manager Mr. Prem Kumar ....... Plaintiff
Versus
Lata Pruthi
W/o Mr. Yash Pal Pruthi
R/o J-11/37, IInd Floor,
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027.
Also at:- H.No.132, Block No-14,
Subhash Nagar, New Delhi-110027. ......Defendant
Civ. DJ No.235/18 Page 1 of 9
Suit for recovery of Rs. 7,12,551/-, alongwith pendente-lite and future
interest
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1.As per the plaint, the case of the plaintiff is as under :-
1.1. That the plaintiff is a Body Corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act 1955, (Act No. XXIII of 1955) and has its Head Office/Central Office/Corporate Office at State Bank Bhavan, Madam Kama Road, Mumbai- 440024. It is a body with perpetual succession and it can sue and be sued in its own name. It is engaged in the field of banking. It has various local head offices and branch offices. One of its local Head Office is at 11, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001. One of its branches is located at Raghubir Nagar, Delhi and RACPC at 59, Community Center, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, Near Payal PVR, Naraina, New Delhi-110028, which are under the administrative control of the local Head Office at New Delhi.
1.2 That Mr. Prem Kumar, who has signed and verified the plaint and instituted the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff bank is posted as Chief Manager in the plaintiff bank situated at RACPC at 59, Community Center, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, Near Payal PVR, Naraina New Delhi-
110028. He is fully conversant with the facts of the present suit on the basis Civ. DJ No.235/18 Page 2 of 9 of the records maintained by the plaintiff bank in the ordinary course of its business. Further, he is competent and authorized to sign the pleadings and all other documents necessary for institution of the present suit, and to do all such acts as are necessary for the same. This is in accordance with the General Regulations, 1955 framed by the Reserve Bank of India in exercise of its powers conferred upon it under Section 50 (3) of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, read with the notification published in the Gazette, including one dated 27.03.1987. Accordingly, a Power of Attorney has been duly executed in his favour.
1.3 That on re-organization of the State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Center has been introduced /established by the plaintiff bank to deal exclusively with the Non-Performing Assets accounts of the branches of the State Bank of India situated within Delhi/New Delhi for recovery of the amounts due against the borrowers etc. Hence, the NPA accounts of the branches throughout Delhi have been transferred to RACPC at 59, Community Center, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, Near Payal PVR, Naraina, New Delhi-110028 for convenience of operation. Hence, RACPC at 59, Community Center, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, Near Payal PVR, Naraina, New Delhi-110028 is filing the present suit. However, the plaintiff remains the State Bank of India only.
1.4 That the plaintiff, being one of the scheduled banks of the country, is engaged in the business of banking. The defendant had approached the plaintiff at its Raghubir Nagar Branch, Delhi for seeking financial assistance by way of a Car Loan Facility, for completion of the Civ. DJ No.235/18 Page 3 of 9 desired course under the SBI Car Loan Scheme. In order to avail the said facility, the defendant had submitted proof of identification, residence and income to the plaintiff. After considering and processing the said request of the defendant, the plaintiff bank sanctioned and disbursed a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rs. Nine Lacs Only) to the defendant on 27.06.2014 for purchasing the desired car. The defendant availed the said facility as a borrower, by opening Term Loan Account No.33933132182, and the said amount was returnable to the plaintiff bank as per the agreed EMIs per month.
1.5. That as per the terms and conditions of grant of the said Car Loan Facility, the defendant had consciously and voluntarily executed various security documents and created various securities in favour of the plaintiff bank, for repayment of the loan amount and the applicable expenses and interest. The said documents include (a) SBI Loan Application,
(b) Appraisal Note, (c) Sanction Note, (d) Agreement for Term Loan, (e) Annexure-I, (f) Operation Letter and (g) Undertaking by the defendant etc. 1.6 That the defendant had agreed to pay interest on the outstanding loan amount at the rate of 9.6 % P.A. with monthly rests subject to rise and fall, as per the banking guidelines. Moreover, the defendant had undertaken and agreed to repay the loan amount in 84 EMIs of Rs. 15,387/-, in terms of the Agreement and the schedule contained therein.
1.7. That the defendant has committed defaults in repayment of the loan amount. As a result of the same, the said loan account became Civ. DJ No.235/18 Page 4 of 9 irregular. Inspite of the defendant having agreed to pay all the dues of the plaintiff within a period of 7 days of the demand made in writing by the plaintiff, the defendant is not paying anything to the plaintiff bank despite various follow-ups. Further, the defendant kept on giving assurances that the plaintiff bank shall be contacted and the said account shall be regularized. However, the defendant failed to do so and consequently, the plaintiff bank had to recall the outstanding loan amount, with the accrued interest and expenses. Further, the plaintiff had to declare and classify the said loan account as NPA on 27.06.2017 due to non-depositing of the stipulated EMIs/not adhering to the terms of the loan sanction.
1.8. That in order to regularize the loan account of the defendant, the plaintiff sent various letters and reminders to the defendant via speed post. The same includes one legal notice dated 19.01.2018 in respect of the due amount of Rs. 6,53,078/-. Since the defendant did not respond to the same, the loan was recalled.
1.9. That the plaintiff bank maintains its accounts in the normal course of business and all entries relating to loan accounts are duly reflected therein. The Books of Accounts reflect a debit balance of Rs. 6,53,078/- against the defendant. The said amount is exclusive of further interest and expenses which the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff bank.
1.10. That as per the prudent norms of accounting laid down by the RBI and internal accounting with regard to Non-Performing Assets (NPA) declared on 26.09.2016, the plaintiff bank has not debited the interest from Civ. DJ No.235/18 Page 5 of 9 the defendant in respect of the loan account. However, as per the contract between the plaintiff bank and the defendant, the plaintiff has a right to recover the same. The interest was never waived, however it was deferred as per the accounting norms. Accordingly, interest till the date of filing of the plaint has been included in the claim of the plaintiff.
1.11. That barring a few payments of certain petty amounts, the defendant has not fulfilled the legal obligations towards the plaintiff bank. Accordingly, as per the Statement of Account in respect of the said loan facility, an amount of Rs. 6,53,078/- plus accrued interest upto date amounting to Rs. 59,473/- is due and payable to the plaintiff by the defendant. Thus, the total due amount is Rs. 7,12,551/-. The plaintiff is also entitled to further interest in respect of the outstanding loan amount at the rate of 9.6 % P.A, with monthly rests, from the date of institution of this suit till realization of the entire dues. Since the entries in the account of the defendant are numerous and cannot be incorporated in the body of the plaint itself, therefore the certified copy of the Statement of Account, duly certified under the Bankers Books of Evidence Act, has been filed alongwith the plaint. The plaintiff does not hold any security as mortgage, in respect of its claim therein.
1.12 Thus, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree of Rs. 7,12,551/-, alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 11.85 % p.a. and 0.75 % above base rate, with monthly rests, from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the amount claimed, alongwith costs of the suit.
Civ. DJ No.235/18 Page 6 of 92. Initially, the present suit was filed as a summary suit under Order 37 CPC. However, vide order dated 19.09.2018, the same was directed to be treated as an ordinary suit, at the request of counsel for the plaintiff.
3. Summons of the suit, through ordinary process as well as RC, issued to the defendant at both the addresses were received back unserved with the report that the defendant has left the given addresses/no such person resides there. On 19.09.2018, counsel for the plaintiff submitted that no alternate address of the defendant is available with the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant was directed to be served by way of publication in the newspaper 'The Statesman'. Subsequently, publication dated 23.01.2019 in the newspaper 'The Statesman' was effected. Since the defendant failed to appear despite service, nor was any Written Statement filed, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte, vide order dated 10.12.2019.
4. In the ex-parte plaintiff evidence, the plaintiff examined Mr. H.S. Bisht, Manager, SBI, RACPC as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW-1/1. PW-1 relied upon the following documents:-
(i) Ex. PW-1/A which is the copy of the Gazette Notification.
(ii) Ex. PW-1/B (colly) which is the original Car Loan Application Form etc.
(iii) Ex. PW-1/C (colly) which are the documents in respect of the said car loan.
(iv) Ex.PW-1/D (colly) which is the original Appraisal Cum Control Report/Sanction Letter.Civ. DJ No.235/18 Page 7 of 9
(v) Ex.PW-1/E which is the original Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement etc.
(vi) Ex. PW 1/F which is the original Annexure I signed and submitted by the defendant.
(vii) Ex. PW 1/G which is the original Operations Letter.
(viii) Ex. PW 1/H which is the original Arrangement Letter.
(ix) Ex. PW 1/I (colly) which are the other loan related documents.
(x) Ex. PW 1/K (colly) which is the certified copy of the Statement of Account of the defendant.
(xi) Ex. PW 1/L (colly) which is the original Certificate of the plaintiff under Section 2-A of the Bankers Book of Evidence Act as well as under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.
(xii) Ex. PW 1/M which is the original Certificate of Accrued Interest.
The document PW-1/J was not exhibited as the same was not mentioned in the evidence affidavit of PW-1.
5. I have heard the ex-parte final arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. The entire record is perused.
6. The testimony of PW-1 regarding the defendant having availed the Car Loan Facility from the plaintiff bank, execution of the Loan-cum- Hypothecation Agreement by the defendant, payment of only certain amounts towards the repayment of the loan as reflected in the Statement of Account Ex. PW-1/K (colly.) filed by the plaintiff, willful default on the part of the defendant in repayment of the complete loan amount, declaration of the loan account of the defendant as a Non Performing Asset by the plaintiff Civ. DJ No.235/18 Page 8 of 9 and an amount of Rs. 6,53,078/- as reflected in the Statement of Account Ex. PW-1/K (colly.) still unpaid by the defendant is unrebutted. The Statement of Account filed by the plaintiff [Ex. PW-1/K (colly)] is also unchallenged. Thus, in view of the said unrebutted testimony of PW-1, the claim of the plaintiff stands proved.
7. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in its favour and against the defendant. A decree of recovery of Rs. 6,53,078/-, being the unpaid dues, is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The defendant is directed to pay the same to the plaintiff alongwith interest on the said amount @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e 26.02.2018 till realization of the decreetal amount. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
The decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Digitally signed by HARLEEN SINGH HARLEEN Date:
SINGH 2021.06.24
04:02:04
+0530
Announced through Cisco Webex (Harleen Singh)
Video Conferencing on this 24th day Additional District Judge-04 (West)
of June, 2021. Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Civ. DJ No.235/18 Page 9 of 9