Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs . Satyabir Singh. on 15 December, 2018
CS/122/17
State Bank of India vs. Satyabir Singh.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK JAGOTRA,
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS/122/17
State Bank of India
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 New Rohtak Road, Delhi and also Centralized recovery
branch known as RACPC, A1/24, Janakpuri, New Delhi
through its Manager Mr. V. R. Meena.
..... Plaintiff
Versus
1.Sh. Satyabir Singh S/o Sh. Mange Ram, R/o H. no. G5/83, Gali no. 3, near Madina Maszid, 5th Pushta Sonia Vihar, Delhi110094.
..... Defendant
Date of institution of case : 18052017
Reserved for Judgment on : 12122018
Date of passing of Judgment : 15.12.2018
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery filed on behalf of plaintiff bank Page No. 1 / 5 CS/122/17 State Bank of India vs. Satyabir Singh.
against the defendant for the recovery of Rs. 3,17,238/ (Three Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Eight) along with pendentelite and future interest @ 10.00 % per annum.
2. Learned counsel for plaintiff has argued the matter and the entire record of the case has been perused meticulously.
3. Learned counsel for plaintiff has submitted that plaintiff has proved its case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and prayed that suit may be decreed with interest.
4. In nutshell, the plaintiff had advanced a vehicle/car loan amount to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/ (Three Lakh Fifty Thousand) to the defendant on 05.03.2013 for purchasing Maruti Wagon R bearing registration no. DL3CC1666 against various loan documents. The defendant had also undertaken to repay the said loan amount in 84 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 5892/. The defendants after utilizing the loan amount did not take care to repay the entire amount to the bank despite various reminders. Plaintiff had also sent a legal notice which fell on deaf ears. Hence, the present suit. Page No. 2 / 5
CS/122/17 State Bank of India vs. Satyabir Singh.
5. Despite service through publication, defendant did not appear in the matter and he was proceeded ex parte on 21072017.
6. PW1 V. R. Meena, Chief Manager of the plaintiff bank has come in the witness box to prove his case. From the evidence it is evinced that plaintiff bank on the request of defendant had advanced a loan to the defendant for purchasing Wagon R car. PW1 has proved the loan application form which is Ex. PW1/3. The loan was sanctioned vide letter dated 06.03.2013 Ex. PW1/8. PW1 has also proved notification of Government of India authorizing the officials of the bank, dated 02.05.1987 Ex. PW1/1, invoice of proposed vehicle Ex. PW1/2, Appraisal note Ex. PW1/4, Arrangement letter Ex. PW1/5, Loan agreement Ex. PW1/6, and Vehicle delivery letter Ex. PW1/7, legal notice Ex. PW1/10, postal receipt Ex. PW1/11, courier receipt Ex. PW1/12, certified copy of statement of account Ex. PW1/13, Certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act Ex. PW1/15. The entire loan amount was disbursed on 05.03.2013. The said loan was for a period of seven years to be paid in 84 EMIs. Despite legal notice Page No. 3 / 5 CS/122/17 State Bank of India vs. Satyabir Singh.
Ex. PW1/10 the defendant did not pay the loan amount.
7. As the defendant has failed to appear before the court despite due service and was proceeded exparte, the witness Sh. V. R. Meena was not subjected to any cross examination on behalf of the defendant and therefore, his testimony has remained unrebutted, uncontroverted and unchallenged. It was obligatory on the part of the defendant to have repaid the amount which he had taken from the bank by honouring EMIs. It is a public money and the defendant has no right to illegally usurp the amount due to him. By not appearing in the matter, it shall be taken that defendant has accepted the case of the plaintiff in toto and has nothing to say in his defence else he would have come and defended his case.
8. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, for a sum of Rs. 3,17,238/ (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Eight Only) along with pendentelite and future interest @ 9% per annum with monthly Page No. 4 / 5 CS/122/17 State Bank of India vs. Satyabir Singh.
rests till its realization.
9. No order as to cost.
10. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
11. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by DEEPAK JAGOTRA
DEEPAK Location: Karkardooma JAGOTRA ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT courts, Delhi Date: 2018.12.15 ON 15th DECEMBER, 2018. 14:57:03 +0530 (DEEPAK JAGOTRA) DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE NORTH EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI Page No. 5 / 5