Delhi District Court
Punjab National Bank vs Sh. Rohit Rathore on 17 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. CHANDER SHEKHAR,
DISTT. & SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTHWEST),
ROOM NO. 401, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
CS No. 17/14
Punjab National Bank
A body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies
(Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act 1970 having its Head
Office at 7, Bhikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi and inter alia having its
branches throughout India including the one at Tri Nagar, near Tota
Ram Bazar, Delhi. ...........Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Sh. Rohit Rathore
2. Sh. Ombir Singh Rathore
3. Smt. Suman Rathore
All r/o: r/o 605/43, Shambhu Nagar
Tri Nagar, Delhi110035 .......Defendants
Date of institution : 10.01.2014
Date of hearing arguments : 16.05.2014
Date of decision : 17.05.2014
JUDGMENT
1. This Judgment shall govern the disposal of the present suit CS No. 17/14 Page 1 of 12 filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 3,16,707/ against the defendants averring therein that in the month of July 2008, defendant no. 1 approached the plaintiff bank for grant of educational loan to the tune of Rs. 1,87,000/ for pursuing BTech 4 years course from National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirapalli and defendant nos. 2 & 3 being parents of defendant no. 1 stood as coborrowers to secure the entire loan amount together with interest and all other charges which may ultimately be found due from defendant no. 1. Accordingly, the defendants submitted a written application dated 01.07.2008 for grant of the said educational loan and the plaintiff bank considered the request of the defendants and sanctioned an advance/loan of Rs. 1,87,000/ and following loan and security document was taken being executed and delivered by the defendants to the plaintiff bank: "Stamped Agreement for Educational Loan dated 13.09.2008 for Rs. 1,87,000/ duly signed and executed by the defendants".
2. It is further averred that the entire loan amount of Rs. 1,87,000/ was agreed to be repaid by 84 equated monthly installments after commencement of the repayment i.e. one year after the course period or six months after getting job, whichever is CS No. 17/14 Page 2 of 12 earlier, along with interest @ 14% p.a. with monthly rests as and when due along with other charges.
3. It is further averred that the said loan of Rs. 1,87,000/ was paid by the plaintiff bank at the request and instance of the defendants, however, a sum of Rs. 22,850/ was already deposited by defendant no. 1 with the institute for which he requested the plaintiff bank to reimburse the same and the plaintiff bank accordingly reimbursed the said amount of Rs. 22,850/ to defendant no. 1 after debiting the loan amount.
4. It is further averred that defendant no. 1 again requested to the plaintiff bank on 15.09.2008 for disbursement of Rs. 49,500/ for purchasing of a laptop make Inspiron 1525 out of the said educational loan and the plaintiff bank accordingly disbursed the said amount in favour of the defendant and paid the same to M/s Advance Computer Shoppe, Pitam Pura, Delhi, at the instance of defendant no. 1.
5. It is further averred that defendant no. 1 again requested to the plaintiff bank on 29.12.2008 for disbursement of Rs. 22,350/ i.e. Rs. 9550/ for institution fees and Rs. 12,800/ as hostel fees, as per the circular of the institute dated 24.12.2008, and the plaintiff CS No. 17/14 Page 3 of 12 bank accordingly disbursed the said amount in favour of the defendant and paid the same to the institute at the instance of defendant no. 1 vide vouchers dated 29.12.2008.
6. It is further averred that defendant no. 1 again requested to the plaintiff bank on 08.07.2009 for disbursement of Rs. 23,850/ i.e. Rs. 11,050/ for institution fees and Rs. 12,800/ as hostel fees and the plaintiff bank accordingly disbursed the said amount in favour of the defendant and paid the same to the institute at the instance of defendant no. 1 vide vouchers dated 08.07.2009. It is further averred that defendant no. 1 meanwhile cleared 4th Semester as per Grade Card issued by the institute on 21.07.2009 in the name of defendant no. 1.
7. It is further averred that defendant no. 1 again requested to the plaintiff bank on 05.01.2010 for disbursement of further amount of Rs. 23,050/ i.e. Rs. 10,250/ for institution fees and Rs. 12,800/ as hostel fees and the plaintiff bank accordingly disbursed the said amount in favour of the defendant and paid the same to the institute at the instance of defendant no. 1 vide vouchers dated 06.01.2010. It is further averred that defendant no. 1 meanwhile cleared 5th Semester as per Grade Card issued by the institute on 06.01.2010 in CS No. 17/14 Page 4 of 12 the name of defendant no. 1.
8. It is further averred that defendant no. 1 again requested to the plaintiff bank on 06.07.2010 for disbursement of further amount of Rs. 23,150/ i.e. Rs. 10,350/ for institution fees and Rs. 12,800/ as hostel fees and the plaintiff bank accordingly disbursed the said amount in favour of the defendant and paid the same to the institute at the instance of defendant no. 1 vide vouchers dated 07.07.2010. It is further averred that defendant no. 1 meanwhile cleared 6th Semester as per Grade Card issued by the institute on 30.07.2010 in the name of defendant no. 1.
9. It is further averred that defendant no. 1 again requested to the plaintiff bank on 29.12.2010 for disbursement of further amount of Rs. 22,250/ i.e. Rs. 10,350/ for institution fees and Rs. 12,800/ as hostel fees and the plaintiff bank accordingly disbursed the said amount in favour of the defendant and paid the same to the institute at the instance of defendant no. 1 vide vouchers dated 29.12.2010.
10. It is further averred that the defendants promised to clear their liabilities time and again, but no substantial deposits were made by them in the loan account to clear the outstanding liability and the defendants, however, acknowledged their liabilities as on CS No. 17/14 Page 5 of 12 28.02.2011 and executed a balance and security confirmation letter on 15.03.2011 in favour of the plaintiff bank, but nothing concrete could come out.
11. It is further averred that since the defendants failed to liquidate the outstanding in their account, the plaintiff bank on various occasions, reminded them about their respective liabilities. It is further averred that the defendants also never inform the bank about completion of the course by defendant no. 1. It is further averred that in spite of repeated requests and reminders, the defendants have deliberately and willfully neglected and failed to adjust the outstanding amount in the loan account. It is further averred that the plaintiff bank informed the defendants vide its letter dated 23.01.2013 about the repayment of the loan account which started from December 2012.
12. It is further averred that the monthly installments for 84 months were rescheduled at the rate of Rs. 4858/ per month. It is further averred that the total balance in the loan account stood at Rs. 2,64,989/ at that time and the account was irregular by Rs. 9716/ which the defendants were requested to deposit.
13. It is further averred that the plaintiff against sent two more CS No. 17/14 Page 6 of 12 letters dated 08.03.2013 and 25.03.2013 to regularize the account, but they failed to deposit the required outstanding amount in the loan account.
14. It is further averred that the plaintiff bank again sent letters dated 09.05.2013, 16.05.2013 and 14.06.2013 to the defendants reminding them about the irregularity in the account and also that the account has been classified as nonperforming asset (NPA). The branch officials of the bank also contacted personally as well as telephonically with the defendants who assured them to clear the outstanding liability, but no concrete steps were taken by the defendants.
15. It is further averred that on final accounting as on 10.01.2014, a sum of Rs. 3,16,707/ has been found due and payable by the defendants, jointly and severally, to the plaintiff bank along with pendente lite and future interest @ 15.25% p.a. with monthly rests and other charges from 01.01.2014 till realization. The details of outstanding amount in the loan account as on 10.01.2014 includes interest from 01.04.2013 to 09.01.2014, are as under : CS No. 17/14 Page 7 of 12
(i) Amount transferred as NPA on 17.04.13 Rs. 2,73,848/ (interest included upto 31.03.2013)
(ii) Amount of interest not shown in ledger for the period 01.04.13 to 09.01.14 Rs. 42,859/ TOTAL Rs. 3,16,707/
16. On these allegations, the plaintiff bank has filed the present suit against the defendants.
17. The summons were issued to the defendants by ordinary process as well as by way of registered AD post, but the same could not be served and received back undelivered with one report or another. Thereafter, the plaintiff bank moved an application under Order V Rule 20 r/w Section 151 CPC for affecting service of summons on the defendants by way of publication and accordingly, the defendants were served with the summons by way of publication in the newspaper "The Statesman" of dated 18.04.2014. However, despite service of summons, the defendants failed to appear in the Court and as such, vide order dated 28.04.2014, the defendants were proceeded exparte.
18. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff bank examined Sh. Vijay Kumar, Sr. Manager of the bank as PW1 who tendered his CS No. 17/14 Page 8 of 12 affidavit in evidence as Ex. PW1/A.
19. During his deposition before the Court, PW1 also proved various documents i.e. PW1/1 to PW1/49 & PW1/41A in support of the case of the plaintiff bank. Documents Ex. PW1/1 is the copy of GPA. Ex. PW1/2 is the written application dated 01.07.2008. Exs. PW1/3 & PW1/4 are the statements of assets and liabilities of defendant nos. 2 & 3. Ex. PW1/5 is the stamped agreement for education loan dated 13.09.2008 for Rs. 1,87,000/. Exs. PW1/6 & PW1/7 are the letter dated 13.09.2008 along with receipts for Rs. 9550/ dated 28.07.2008 & Rs. 13,300/ dated 22.08.2008. Ex. PW1/8 are the four vouchers all dated 13.09.2008. Exs. PW1/9 to PW1/12 are the letter dated 15.09.2008, invoice proforma, vouchers and retail invoice, all dated 15.09.2008. Ex. PW1/13 is the letter dated 29.12.2008. Ex. PW1/14 is the Circular dated 24.12.2008. Ex. PW1/15 is the voucher dated 29.12.2008. Exs. PW1/16 & PW1/17 are the receipts dated 16.01.2009 and 30.01.2009 respectively. Ex. PW1/18 is the Grade Card dated 06.01.2009. Exs. PW1/19 & PW1/20 are the letter dated 08.07.2009 and Circular respectively. Ex. PW1/21 are three vouchers all dated 08.07.2009. Exs. PW1/22 & PW1/23 are the receipts dated 08.08.2009 and CS No. 17/14 Page 9 of 12 18.09.2009 respectively. Ex. PW1/24 is the Grade Card dated 21.07.2009. Ex. PW1/25 is the request letter dated 05.01.2010. Ex. PW1/26 are three vouchers all dated 06.01.2010. Exs. PW1/27 & PW1/28 are the receipts dated 20.01.2010 and 15.02.2010 respectively. Ex. PW1/29 is the Grade Card dated06.01.2010. Ex. PW1/30 is the request letter dated 06.07.2010. Ex. PW1/31 is the Circular dated 15.12.2010. Ex. PW1/32 is the another Circular. Ex. PW1/33 are three vouchers all dated 07.07.2010. Exs. PW1/34 & PW1/35 are the receipts dated 04.08.2010 and 14.08.2010 respectively. Ex. PW1/36 is the Grade Card dated 30.07.2010. Ex. PW1/37 is the request letter dated 29.12.2010. Exs. PW1/38 & PW1/39 are five vouchers, all dated 29.12.2010. Exs. PW1/40, PW1/41 & PW1/41A are the balance and security confirmation letters respectively, all dated 15.03.2011. Ex. PW1/42 is the Reminder dated 23.01.2013. Exs. PW1/43 & PW1/44 are the letters dated 08.03.2013 and 25.03.2013 respectively. Exs. PW1/45 to PW1/47 are the letter dated 09.05.2013, 16.05.2013 and 14.06.2013 respectively. Exs. PW1/48 & PW1/49 are the statements of account.
20. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff bank and have CS No. 17/14 Page 10 of 12 also gone through the records.
21. The testimony of PW1 has remained unchallenged and consistent throughout and there is nothing on record to disbelieve his statement.
22. Thus from the unrebutted and unchallenged testimony of PW1 coupled with documents proved on record, I am of view that the plaintiff bank has been successful in proving its case to the effect that the plaintiff bank granted various loan facilities to defendant no. 1, as discussed herein above, on which defendant nos. 2 & 3 stood as coborrowers. The plaintiff bank has also been successful in proving the fact that thereafter the defendants failed to regularize the loan account and as per statement of account of the defendants, they are liable to pay an amount of Rs. 3,16,707/ as on date of filing of the suit.
23. In the circumstances of the case, I pass a decree for recovery in the sum of Rs. 3,16,707/ in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendants along with costs of the suit. The plaintiff bank is also entitled to recover the pendente lite and future interest, however, @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till CS No. 17/14 Page 11 of 12 the realization of the decretal amount. Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly and file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court
today i.e. 17.05.2014 (Chander Shekhar)
Distt. & Sessions Judge (N/W)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
CS No. 17/14 Page 12 of 12