Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Vinod Kumar Yadav vs Union Bank Of India on 11 September, 2023

IN THE COURT OF MS. SWATI GUPTA-I, ACJ-CUM-ARC-CUM-CCJ,
 NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI

                                                            CS SCJ No. 394/22
         Vinod Kumar Yadav
         S/o Sh. Hira Lal
         R/o H. No. 73/G1, Phase-1,
         New Vihar, Gurugram-122017                                 ... Plaintiff


         Union Bank of India
         Credit Card Division
         2nd Floor, Koti, Sultan Bazar
         Hyderabad-500095

         Also at:
         Branch Manager
         Union Bank of India
         Shram Shakti Bhawan
         Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001                              ... Defendant

         CIVIL SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND
                   RECOVERY OF DAMAGES

         Date of institution                :   05.04.2022
         Arguments heard on                 :   18.04.2023 & 11.09.2023
         Date of judgment                   :   11.09.2023
         Final judgment                     :   Suit Decreed.

                            EX-PARTE JUDGMENT

    1.

The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for mandatory injunction to restrain the defendant bank from recovery of illegal outstanding CS No. 394/22 Page 1 of 6 Vinod Kumar Yadav Vs. Union Bank of India amount by way of auto debit from the savings bank account of plaintiff and further restraining the defendant from adding per month interest on the illegal outstanding amount and for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest @18% p.a. Brief facts

2. Brief facts of the present case, as averred in the plaint, are that the plaintiff is an ex-service man and presently working at NTRO, Delhi, and is a bank account credit card holder of defendant bank, i.e. Union Bank of India. Credit card of plaintiff bears credit card no. 4895001400069629. The said credit card is already expired in June, 2019 and the plaintiff had paid his entire outstanding credit card amount in the month of July 2021. As per plaintiff, after July 2021, plaintiff had not made any transaction through the said credit card. It is the case of the plaintiff that suddenly he got an e-bill statement dated 25.11.2021 issued by defendant on e-mail of plaintiff in which an amount of Rs. 2,30,581.02/- has been shown outstanding against the aforesaid credit card of plaintiff. Then plaintiff had contacted the branch of defendant bank several times and also called on customer care and lodged his grievance but even after assurance, plaintiff did not receive satisfactory reply from the CS No. 394/22 Page 2 of 6 Vinod Kumar Yadav Vs. Union Bank of India defendant. The plaintiff again received credit card statement dated 24.02.2022 in which an outstanding closing balance amount is shown as Rs. 2,50,230/-. The plaintiff also noticed that on 18.02.2022 an amount of Rs. 2,820/- and again on 03.03.2022 an amount of Rs. 12,550/- has been illegally auto debited from the account of plaintiff on account of payment of credit card without any prior intimation to plaintiff. The plaintiff had e-mailed his grievance to defendant on 05.03.2022 and requested for stopping random auto debit from his saving bank account but defendant did not bother to solve the hardship faced by plaintiff. Hence, the present suit filed by plaintiff.

Trial and Evidence

3. Summons were issued to the defendant. Despite due service, defendant did not file any written statement within the statutory period and accordingly, its defence was struck of and it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 26.09.2022.

4. In ex-parte evidence, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and relied upon the documents Ex. PW1/1 & Ex. PW1/3 and Mark A to Mark C. No other witness was examined in PE and ex-parte PE was closed.

Vinod Kumar Yadav Vs. Union Bank of India Arguments and Relief

5. I have heard the ex-parte final arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and carefully perused the record.

6. In the present case, as noted above, vide order dated 26.09.2022, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte and its defence was struck of for not filing the written statement. The plaintiff has inter alia proved on record averments of plaint by filing evidence by way of affidavit; and copy of his Aadhar card as Ex.PW1/1 (OSR). Copy of credit card statement [Ex.PW1/3 (OSR)] shows that on 25.07.2021, a payment of Rs. 1,75,065.09 was reflected and the outstanding balance in the said credit card statement become zero. Thereafter, again charges of Rs. 35,173.37 and Rs. 1,95,407.65 are levied towards "GST CHRG FR MIG TO" and "SER CHRG for MIG TO". The said charges are thereafter continuously increasing. Further, on two occasions, payment of Rs. 2,820/- and Rs. 12,550/- is shown to be made through CBS. Plaintiff has also filed various communication addressed to defendant but no reply is received from defendant. The said evidence of PW1 stands unrebutted / unchallenged, as PW1 was not cross-examined by the said defendant. Defendant has not even cared to appear or file written statement to show the basis of outstanding dues being shown in the credit card CS No. 394/22 Page 4 of 6 Vinod Kumar Yadav Vs. Union Bank of India statement of plaintiff. This Court does not find any reason to disbelieve the unrebutted testimony of the plaintiff / PW-1 recorded on oath in Court. In view of the unchallenged testimony of PW1, documents exhibited/tendered in evidence by PW1 and on the basis of material on record, it may be said that the plaintiff has been able to prove its case against defendant on preponderance of probabilities.

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant. The plaintiff is held entitled for the decree of mandatory injunction in favour of plaintiff and against defendant bank restraining the defendant from recovering of outstanding amount towards credit card payment pertaining to card no. 4895001400069629 by way of auto debit transaction from the savings bank account of the plaintiff and defendant is restrained from adding per month interest in respect of said credit credit card. The plaintiff has claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- for which no basis is shown. However, considering the amount deducted from savings bank account of plaintiff and mental harassment, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- is awarded towards damages alongwith interest @6% from the date of decree till date.

Vinod Kumar Yadav Vs. Union Bank of India

8. Deficient court-fees, if any, be filed within 10 days from today and decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.

9. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.

Announced in the open Court (SWATI GUPTA-I) today i.e. on 11.09.2023. ACJ/CCJ/ARC, NDD, PHC NEW DELHI : 11.09.2023 CS No. 394/22 Page 6 of 6 Vinod Kumar Yadav Vs. Union Bank of India