Bangalore District Court
) Icici Bank Limited vs ) Mr.Rajesh Goud Nadem on 11 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH22)
Present: Smt. Suvarna K. Mirji, B.Com., LL.B.(Spl).,
XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
OS.No.26088/2019
Dated this 11th day of April 2022
Plaintiff: 1) ICICI Bank Limited,
Mittal Tower, M.G. Road,
Bangalore 560 001.
Represented by its Officer of Power of
Attorney Holder,
Pramodh G S/o Gurumallappa.
Aged about 43 years,
(Rep by Sri. F.X & Co., Advocates)
V/S
Defendants: 1) Mr.Rajesh Goud Nadem
S/o Nadem Laxman Goud,
Aged about 34 years,
Dhanalakshmi building H.No.409,
7th Cross, 1st Phase, 3rd main,
7th cross, Global Village Back Gate,
Bengaluru 560 059.
(exparte)
Judgment 2 OS.No.26088/2019
Date of Institution of the suit 16/08/2019
Nature of the (Suit or pronote,
suit for declaration and
Recovery of Money
possession, suit for injunction,
etc.)
Date of the commencement of
05/04/2022
recording of the Evidence.
Date on which the Judgment
11/04/2022
was pronounced.
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 02 07 25
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
Mayohall Unit: Bengaluru
:JUDGMENT:
The plaintiff Bank filed suit against defendant for recovery of loan amount.
2. The brief facts of plaint averments is as under:under:
The power of attorney holder of plaintiff Bank submits that they are a Banking Company functioning in India under of Judgment 3 OS.No.26088/2019 provisions of the Banking Regulations Act 1949 having various branch offices all over India inter alia Bangalore Promodh G is a Manager and Power of Attorney holder to appear and contest the suit. In the course of their banking operation, they have introduced Credit Cards, Auto Loan, personal loan, Professional Loan and Home loan facilities for the benefit of their valued customers. The defendants approached the plaintiff bank for financial assistance of Rs.6,12,642/ under Auto Loan Scheme for purchasing DZIRE/VXI car bearing Registration No.TSO9E6919. That after considering requirement of defendants as well as his credibility, the plaintiff have agreed to provide financial assistance of Rs.6,12,642/ to defendants on condition that defendants should repay said loan amount by EMI for sum of Rs. 13,003/ per month for period of 60 months until the entire loan amount is cleared. The terms and conditions governing the loan was agreed by the defendant, the plaintiff sanctioned loan of Rs.6,12,642/ on 30/06/2016. The defendant Judgment 4 OS.No.26088/2019 has executed Credit Facility Application Form in favour of plaintiff for the principle amount of Rs. 6,12,642/ along with the interest at the rate of Rs.9.99% p.a and also Unattested Deed of Hypothecation Agreement along with Irrevocable Power of Attorney in the nature of Hire Purchase dated: 30/06/2016 which stipulates the terms and conditions of the loan with plaintiff. The loan was disbursed on 30/06/2016. That as per the terms and conditions the defendant agreed and undertook to repay the loan amount an equated monthly installment is delayed the defendants would liable to pay penal interest and other charges etc., It was also agreed by the defendant that in the event of default he making the payment of installments by the defendant the plaintiff Bank would be entitle to recall the entire loan and take further steps for recovery and enforcement of security in accordance with the terms of the aforesaid agreement. In the event of default for making the payment of the installments by the defendant, the plaintiff Bank be entitle to Judgment 5 OS.No.26088/2019 take over possession of vehicle financed to them and in further Bank may sell the same to recover outstanding amount due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff Bank toward the loan facility availed by him.
3. The power of attorney holder of plaintiff Bank further submits that defendant after availing said facility have become defaulter of agreed monthly installments. Despite several requests and reminders to persuade him to pay defaulted monthly installments and to make him to regularize account, the defendant had failed to do the same. The defendant was gross defaulter for sum of Rs.3,75,868/ as on 06/05/2019. The plaintiff issued loan recall notice on 17/05/2019 to the defendant and calling upon defendant to pay entire outstanding loan amount within seven days from the date of receipt of notice. The defendant was due to total sum of Rs.3,64,488=15ps as on 17/07/2019 in Account No.LABNG00034541198 i.e., Principal Judgment 6 OS.No.26088/2019 outstanding amount Rs.3,23533/, Late Payment Penalty Rs.7,179/, Cheque Bouncing Charges & Other Charges Rs.3,221/, Interest for the Month Rs.1,252=30ps, Prepayment charges @ 5.9% at the O/S Principal Rs.19,088=45ps. Interest in pending installment Rs.10,214=40ps.
4. The power of attorney of plaintiff Bank further submits that cause of action for this suit arose on the day when the defendant has applied for availing the said facility. On 30/06/2016 the day when the defendant has executed the said credit facility application form, as well as on 30/06/2018 the day when defendant made last payment, on 17/05/2019 the day when the last loan EMIs end and also on such other dates when the defendant had failed to make payment as per the terms and conditions agreed upon by him. The power of attorney holder of plaintiff Bank prays to decree the suit for recovery of loan amount directing defendants to pay sum of Rs.3,64,488=15ps Judgment 7 OS.No.26088/2019 together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of filing suit till date of decree and award costs of the suit.
5. The suit summons issued to the defendant, but same was not served. The plaintiff taken steps for service of summons to defendant by way of paper publication, but same was published in the The Hindu News Paper dated:19/02/2022, but the defendant has not appeared placed exparte.
6. The GPA holder of plaintiff Bank examined as PW.1 and documents marked at ExP1 to ExP9. The defendant placed exparte, hence no crossexamination of PW.1. The defendant exparte, hence no evidence of defendant.
7. The plaintiff counsel argued. Perused the records.
8. The points arise for my consideration are as under: Judgment 8 OS.No.26088/2019
1. Whether plaintiff Bank made out prima facie ground to decree the suit?
2. What Order?
9. My finding to the above points are as under: Point No.1: In Affirmative Point No.2: See final order for following:
:REASONS:
10. Point No.1: The GPA holder of plaintiff Bank Pramodh G S/o Gurumallappa filed his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief as PW.1 and deposed evidence that in the course of their banking operation, they have introduced Credit Cards, Auto Loan, Personal Loan, Professional Loan and Home loan facilities for benefit of their valued customers. The defendant approached Judgment 9 OS.No.26088/2019 plaintiff bank for financial assistance of Rs.6,12,642/ under Auto loan scheme and for purchasing DZIRE/VXI car bearing registration No.TS09EN6919. The defendant had submitted valuation report dated:30/06/2016 issued by M/s Kalyani Motors and (P) Ltd., Bangalore. After considering the requirement of defendant, as well as her credibility, the plaintiffs have agreed to provide a financial assistance of Rs.6,12,642/ to the defendant on condition that the defendant should pay the said loan amount by equated monthly installments for sum of Rs.13,003/ per month for period of 60 months until the entire loan amount is cleared. The terms and conditions governing the loan was agreed by the defendant, the plaintiff sanctioned loan of Rs.6,12,642/ on 30/06/2016. The defendants have executed Credit Facility Application Form in favour of plaintiff for the principle amount of Rs. 6,12,642/ along with the interest at the rate of Rs.9.99% p.a and also Unattested Deed of Hypothecation Agreement along with Irrevocable Power of Attorney in the Judgment 10 OS.No.26088/2019 nature of Hire Purchase dated: 30/06/2016 which stipulates the terms and conditions of the loan, with the plaintiff.
11. The PW.1 further deposed evidence that defendant while availing the sum of Rs.6,12,642/ had agreed to pay the entire amount in 60 equated monthly installments of Rs.13,003/ including interest at the rate of 9.99% p.a. commencing from 15/12/2014 and the said vehicle was hypothicated in favour of the bank in terms of the loan cum hypothetical agreement dated 30/0/2016 entered between the plaintiff and defendant. That as per the terms and conditions defendant agreed and undertook to repay the loan amount an equated monthly installment as stated aforesaid. The defendant further agreed that in case of any installment is delayed the defendant would liable to pay penal interest and other charges etc., It was also agreed by the defendant that in the event of default in making the payment of installment by the defendant, the plaintiff bank would be entitled Judgment 11 OS.No.26088/2019 to recall the entire loan and take further steps for recovery and enforcement of security in accordance with the terms of the aforesaid agreement.
12. The PW.1 further deposed evidence that the defendant also agreed in the event of default in making the payment of the installments by the defendant, the plaintiff bank would be entitled to take over possession of the vehicle financed to them and in further the bank may sell the same to recover the outstanding amount due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff bank towards the loan facility availed by them. The defendant after availing the said facility become defaulter of the agreed monthly installments. Despite several requests and reminders to persuade him to pay the defaulted monthly installments and to make him to regularize the account, the defendant had failed to do the same. The defendant was gross defaulter for a sum of Rs.3,75,868/ as on 06/05/2019. The Judgment 12 OS.No.26088/2019 plaintiff have issued the loan recall notice dated: 17/05/2019 to the defendant and calling upon the defendant to pay the entire outstanding loan amount within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. The defendant was due a total sum of Rs.3,64,488=15ps as on 17/07/2019. The PW.1 prays to decree the suit as prayed. In support of oral evidence PW.1 marked documents ExP1 to ExP9.
13. The ExP1 is notarized copy of power of attorney authorizing PW.1 by his higher authority for conducting the case and deposing evidence before the court. The ExP2 is loan application of the defendant. The ExP3 is Credit facility application from executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff relating to the said loan transaction. The ExP4 is unattested deed of hypothication executed by defendant, The ExP5 is irrevocable power of attorney executed by defendant. The ExP6 is Loan recall notice issued to defendant by the plaintiff Bank. The ExP7 Judgment 13 OS.No.26088/2019 is Postal track consignment. The ExP8 is loan account statement of defendant. The ExP9 is Loan foreclosure statement. That as per ExP8 and ExP9 there is outstanding balance of Rs.3,64,488=15ps to be payable by defendant to plaintiff Bank.
14. The ExP2 to ExP5 discloses that those loan documents were executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff bank agreeing to repay the loan amount in 60 installments. But ExP5 loan recall notice discloses the plaintiff bank issued notices to the defendant for repayment of the loan amount. But the defendant has not paid the said amount. That suit summons were issued to defendant, but same was unserved. The addresses mentioned in the plaint is the same address mentioned in the loan application as per ExP2 executed by the defendant. But the same was notice was not served on the defendant and finally the plaintiff bank taken steps for substitute service of summons to the defendant by way of paper publication in The Hindu News paper dated Judgment 14 OS.No.26088/2019 19/02/2022 but inspite of that the defendant not appeared and placed exparte. The documents produced and marked by the plaintiff Bank at ExP2 to ExP9 discloses that the defendant availed loan from the plaintiff Bank, but failed to repay the said amount. Hence the plaintiff Bank is entitle for recovery of the said loan amount from the defendant. The plaintiff Bank made out prima facie ground to decree the suit and proved point No.1. Hence I answer point No.1 in Affirmative.
15. Point No.2: In view of above discussion I proceed to pass following :ORDER:
The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs. It is ordered and decreed that the defendant is directed to pay sum of Rs.3,64,488=15ps together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of Judgment 15 OS.No.26088/2019 suit till the date of realization of entire decreetal amount to plaintiff.
In case of default by the defendant the plaintiff bank is at liberty to get the recover the said loan amount from the defendant in due procedure of law.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her. Then corrected online, taken printout, and corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of April 2022).
(Smt.Suvarna K. Mirji) XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE :ANNEXURE:
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF: PW1 Pramodh Gurumallappa S/o Gurumallappa DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
ExP1 Notarized copy of power of attorney
ExP2 Loan application of the defendant
Judgment 16 OS.No.26088/2019
ExP3 Credit facility application form
ExP4 unattested deed of hypothication
ExP5 Irrevocable power of attorney
ExP6 Loan recall notice
ExP7 Postal track consignment
ExP8 Loan account statement
ExP9 Loan foreclosure statement
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
NIL
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
NIL
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.