Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Sh. Gaurav Pant on 3 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJINDER SINGH
SCJ/RC(WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS. No.623/17
In the matter of:
State Bank of India, a Corporation
constituted under State Bank of India Act,
1955 having its Central Office/Corporate Centre at
State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai40024, one of its Local Head Office at
11, Sansad Marg, New Delhi110001, one of the
branch situated at Subhash Nagar, Delhi and also
centralized recovery branch known as RACPC,
A1/24, Janakpuri, New Delhi, through its
Chief Manager Mr. V.R. Verma. .........Plaintiff
Vs.
Sh. Gaurav Pant,
S/o Sh. Ramswaroop Pant,
R/o B196, BlockA,
Sainik Nagar, Nawada,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi110059.
Also At:
Sh. Gaurav Pant,
(Asstt. City Manager)
Go Airlines India Ltd.,
DepttGround Sales,
1 D Terminal Palam Airport,
New Delhi110037. .....Defendant
Date of filing of the suit : 09.05.2017
Date of reserving Judgment : 15.05.2018
Date of pronouncement : 03.07.2018
CS. No. 623/17
SBI Vs. Gaurav Pant Page..1/5
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 1,63,914/ ALONGWITH
PENDENTELLITE AND FUTURE INTEREST
ExPARTE JUDGMENT
1.Plaintiff's case: 1.1 Plaintiff is a nationalized bank constituted under the State Bank of India Act 1955. The present suit has been filed through Sh. V.R. Meena, Chief Manager, SBI, Janakpuri, Delhi.
1.2 Defendant approached the plaintiff for car loan. Considering the proposal and economic viability, plaintiff sanctioned loan of Rs.3,00,000/ on 06.08.2011. Defendant purchased vehicle no. DL9CAC1432 from the said loan. In para6 of the plaint, plaintiff has mentioned the list of documents that were prepared in relation to the loan.
1.3 The loan was agreed to be repaid in 72 EMIs of Rs.5,826/ each. The rate of interest was agreed at 11.75% per annum (floating rate). Car loan account no. 31879401184 was opened with the plaintiff bank at Subhash Nagar Branch.
1.4 Defendant committed default in repayment of the loan. The said loan was declared non performing asset on 30.04.2015.
1.5 Legal notice dated 25.03.2017 was served upon the CS. No. 623/17 SBI Vs. Gaurav Pant Page..2/5 defendant. At present, defendant is liable to pay Rs. 1,63,914/ (break up of this amount is given in para11 of the plaint).
2. Despite service through newspaper publication, defendant did not appear. Vide order dated 06.11.2017, defendant was proceeded exparte. Since, no written statement was filed, there was no occasion for framing of issues.
3. ExPARTE EVIDENCE: 3.1 Plaintiff bank examined Ms. Suresh Bala, Chief Manager, SBI, RACPC, Janakpuri, as PW1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
(i) Certified true copy of gazette notification Ex.PW1/1;
(ii) Proforma invoice of vehicle Ex. PW1/2;
(iii) Original Car loan application Ex. PW1/3;
(iv) Original Appraisalcumcontrol report Ex. PW1/4;
(v) Original arrangement letter dated 14.06.2011 Ex. PW1/5;
(vi) Arrangement letter (AnnexureC) Ex. PW1/6;
(vii) Original Loan cum Hypothecation agreement dated 14.06.2011 and Loan cum Hypothecation agreement (Annexure A) Ex. PW1/7 and Ex. PW1/8 respectively;
(viii) AnnexureI Ex. PW1/9;
(ix) Annexure CarVIII Ex. PW1/10;
(x) Legal notice dated 25.03.2017 Ex. PW1/11;
(xi) Postal receipts and courier receipts Ex. PW1/12 (colly)
and Ex. PW1/13 (colly) respectively;
(xii) Statement of account Ex. PW1/14;
(xiii) Certificate of accrued interest Ex. PW1/15;
CS. No. 623/17 SBI Vs. Gaurav Pant Page..3/5(xiv) Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW1/16;
(xv) Photocopy of receipt issued by DD Motors MarkA; (xvi) Photocopy of insurance police MarkB;
(xvii) Photocopy of ID card MarkC;
(xviii) Photocopy of office ID of defendant MarkD; (xix) Photocopy of PAN card of defendant MarkE; (xx) Photocopy of three pay slip of defendant MarkF (colly).
3.2 Vide statement dated 26.03.2018, PW1 closed exparte PE.
4. Exparte Final Arguments: 4.1 Exparte final arguments heard.
5. Court's Findings and Reasoning: 5.1 As the defendant failed to contest the suit, the testimony of PW1 has remained unrebutted. Further, there is no reason to disbelieve uncontroverted and unchallenged testimony of PW1 based on documentary evidence. The plaintiff has been able to prove its case. Hence, decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,63,914/ alongwith [email protected]% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization, is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
6. Suit of the plaintiff is decreed.
CS. No. 623/17 SBI Vs. Gaurav Pant Page..4/57. No order as to cost.
8. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly upon furnishing of deficient court fee.
9. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by RAJINDER RAJINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2018.07.09
14:52:22 +0530
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN (Rajinder Singh)
COURT ON 03.07.2018 SCJ/RC(WEST)/ DELHI
CS. No. 623/17
SBI Vs. Gaurav Pant Page..5/5