Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Mr. Rajan Kumar on 24 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK DABAS:
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-05: WEST:
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CivDJ/613817/2016
STATE BANK OF INDIA
A corporation constituted under
State Bank of India Act 1955
having its Central Office/Corporate
Centre at State Bank Bhawan,
Madam Cama Road Mumbai-400024,
one of its Local Head Office at 11,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001
and as Stressed Assets
Recovery branch unit RACPC at 1/24
Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058
Through its Chief Manager
Mr. V.R. Meena ...........Plaintiff
Versus
MR. RAJAN KUMAR
S/o Late Shri K. L. Sharma,
R/o H. No.C-9/6, Block-C,
First Floor, Pocket-9, Sector-15,
Rohini, Delhi. ...............Defendant
Date of institution of suit:-07.12.2016
Date of reserving for order:-24.07.2018
Date of pronouncement:-24.07.2018
State Bank of India Vs. Rajan Kumar Page No. 1/5
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.6,25,241/-
Ex-parte Judgment
1.Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.6,25,241/- (Rs. Six Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Two Hundred Forty One Only) alongwith pendentelite and future interest.
2. According to plaintiff, it is a corporate body constituted under State Bank of India Act 1955. The present suit has been filed/instituted by Mr. V.R. Meena i.e. Chief Manager of plaintiff.
3. According to plaintiff, on 23.10.2013, defendant approached plaintiff at its Raghubir Nagar Branch New Delhi for financial assistance for a sum of Rs.5,70,000/- and applied for the same by submitting a loan application dated 23.10.2013 alongwith supporting documents under the SBI Car Loan Scheme. Plaintiff bank agreed to sanction financial facility to defendant under the SBI Car/Term Loan Scheme.
4. According to plaintiff, defendant executed loan document on 23.10.2013 in favour of plaintiff for repayment of said loan amount and it was agreed that the entire amount outstanding shall become payable at once upon default in payment of any installment. The defendant agreed/undertook to repay the loan amount in 84 equated monthly installments of Rs.9625/- each.
State Bank of India Vs. Rajan Kumar Page No. 2/55. According to plaintiff, after execution of all the relevant documents, plaintiff bank disbursed the loan amount of Rs.5.70 lacs on 23.10.2013 by opening a loan account no.3399353774 with it at Raghubir Nagar Branch. The defendant duly availed/used the aforesaid loan amount/facility from plaintiff bank but thereafter, the defendant failed to honour his undertaking/assurances and committed regular defaults in paying monthly installments. Consequently, the account of plaintiff was treated as NPA on 11.06.2015.
6. According to plaintiff, defendant was contacted and requested several times to pay the loan/installment amount and regularize his loan account but defendant failed to regularize his account. Due to persistent defaults committed by the defendant, the loan was recalled by the plaintiff bank. Legal/demand notice dated 14.10.2016 was sent by plaintiff to defendant. However, defendant neither replied to said notice nor made payment to plaintiff. Hence, the present suit has been filed for recovery of aforesaid amount.
7. Ordinary summons were sent to defendant several times but the same were repeatedly received back unserved. Vide order dated 11.04.2017, an application filed by plaintiff under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC was allowed and defendant was ordered to be served by way of publication in newspaper. Defendant was duly served by way of publication in newspaper namely "Veer Arjun" dated 16.05.2017. Inspite of service, defendant failed to appear in Court and was proceeded State Bank of India Vs. Rajan Kumar Page No. 3/5 exparte vide order dated 24.05.2017. Matter was adjourned for exparte P.E.
8. In support of its case, plaintiff has produced and examined only one witness. PW-1 is Ms Suresh Bala i.e. Chief Manager, State Bank of India. PW-1 filed her evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.PW-1/A. PW- 1 relied upon documents i.e. Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/11.
9. In her evidence by way of affidavit, PW-1 reiterated the facts mentioned in plaint and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
10. Testimony of PW-1 has remained unchallenged and unrebutted. Defendant was proceeded exparte since very beginning therefore PW-1 was not cross examined by or on behalf of defendant.
11. Attested Copy of Gazette and Authority Letter are Ex.PW-1/1 and Ex.PW-1/2. Loan Application filed by defendant dated 23.10.2013 is Ex.PW-1/3, Arrangement letter dated 23.10.2013 is Ex.PW-1/4. Loan- cum-hypothecation agreement dated 23.10.2013 and Understanding dated 23.10.2013 are Ex.PW-1/5 & Ex.PW-1/6 respectively. Copy of legal demand notice dated 14.10.2016 and receipt of Speed Post are Ex.PW-1/7 & Ex.PW-1/8 respectively. Statement of Account is Ex.PW- 1/9. Certificate of accrued interest is Ex.PW-1/10 and CBS Certificate as per Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act 1872 is Ex.PW-1/11.
State Bank of India Vs. Rajan Kumar Page No. 4/512. After perusal of evidence led by plaintiff in support of its case, I am of the considered view that plaintiff has successfully proved that defendant had taken/availed loan of Rs.5.70 lacs from plaintiff. Defendant was very irregular in paying monthly installments. Consequently, plaintiff recalled the entire loan. Inspite of repeated requests made by plaintiff, defendant failed to repay the outstanding amount. Legal notice i.e. Ex.PW-1/7 was sent to defendant but inspite of it, defendant failed to pay the outstanding amount to plaintiff. The suit has been filed within limitation and this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. There is no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted and unchallenged testimony of PW-1.
13. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the suit filed by plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
A decree for a sum of Rs.6,25,241/- is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to simple interest on the aforesaid amount @ 10.05% per annum from date of filing of present suit till the realization of the decreetal amount. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to cost of the suit.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK DABAS
DABAS Date: 2018.07.24
16:30:59 +0530
Announced in the open Court (DEEPAK DABAS)
Dated :- 24th July 2018 ADJ-05, WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
State Bank of India Vs. Rajan Kumar Page No. 5/5