Delhi District Court
M/S Icici Bank Ltd vs Parmod Kumar S/O Rajendra Singh on 29 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMIT DASS, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
CUMRENT CONTROLLER (NORTH), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. : 48/2008
M/s ICICI Bank Ltd.
Through Mr. Anurodh Julius
Constituted Attorney of the Bank
Having Registered Office at:
"Landmark", Race Course Circle
Vadodara390007.
Having its Branch Office at:
S.D. Tower, Sector 8
Rohini, New Delhi110085.
...Plaintiff.
Versus
Parmod Kumar S/o Rajendra Singh
H.No. 266, Main Market,
Badarpur110044.
Also at
Shop No. 1, Surajkund,
Anangpur, Road Faridabad. ...Defendant.
Date of Institution : 24.11.2008.
Date of Arguments : 29.01.2014.
Date of Judgment : 29.01.2014.
Suit No. 48/08. 1 of 4
ICICI BANK LTD VS Parmod Kumar
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 1,51,601/ UNDER ORDER XXXVII CPC.
JUDGMENT:
The present suit for recovery of Rs. 1,51,601/ has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. However, the same was ordered to be treated as an ordinary recovery suit vide order dated 03.01.2009.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiff is a bank and is a body corporate incorporated and registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is stated that the defendants approached the plaintiff bank for grant of loan of Rs.2,05,000/ for purchase of a vehicle namely M 800/AC. Upon such request, on 21.02.2006, the plaintiff bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.2,05,000/. The defendant is the borrower of the plaintiff bank for the purchase of the said vehicle. The defendants agreed to repay the said loan alongwith interest in 59 equated monthly installments of Rs. 4566/ each. The defendant executed an Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation, Demand Promissory Note and Irrevocable Power of Attorney. The vehicle of the defendants registered with the registration authority with registration no. DL2CAF5819 and the same was hypothecated in favour of the plaintiff bank in terms of loan documents. It is further stated that after availing the said loan from the plaintiff bank, the defendant failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement regarding repayment of amount either towards principal or towards the interest or charges thereon and several ESC Suit No. 48/08. 2 of 4 ICICI BANK LTD VS Parmod Kumar instructions/ cheques issued by the defendants for repayment of loan were dishonoured or returned unpaid. Several reminders were issued to the defendants to pay the outstanding loan amount but to no avail. The plaintiff company finally issued a demand notice dated 04.04.2008 calling upon the defendant to repay the entire outstanding amount and to hand over the peaceful possession of the vehicle which is hypothecated to the bank under the agreement. However, despite the receipt of the notice, the defendants failed to comply with the notice. It is further submitted that as per the account maintained by the plaintiff, the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,51,601/ towards principal, interest and other charges. Hence, the present suit.
3. Summons for settlement of issues were issued to the defendant and the same were served upon the defendant through publication. However, when the defendant failed to appear, he was proceeded exparte on 09.09.2011 by my learned predecessor. Thereafter, the plaintiff led its evidence and examined Sh. Arun Chaudhary, authorized representative of the plaintiff bank as PW1.
4. PW1 Sh. Arun Choudhary, authorized representative of the plaintiff bank deposed on the lines of the plaint and proved the original credit facility agreement, deed of hypothecation and irrevocable power of attorney from Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW3, certified statement of account is Ex. PW1/4, copy of termination notice alongwith postal receipt are Ex.PW1/5 and Ex. PW1/6, power of attorney is Ex. PW1/7 and the power of attorney in favour of earlier AR is Suit No. 48/08. 3 of 4 ICICI BANK LTD VS Parmod Kumar Mark X, copy of letter dated 8.10.2008 is Ex PW1/8.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record very carefully.
6. As the testimony of PW1 has been entirely unrebutted and unchallenged, I have no reasons to disbelieve the same. In view of the above, the plaintiff bank has become entitled for a decree. As regards the interest, there is a clause that in case of defaults, the rate of interest would be 24% per annum. However, the same is an exaggerated rate of interest and is a penalty clause and the penalties cannot be enforced under Indian Contract Act. However, considering that the defendant has defaulted in making the payment to the plaintiff, I am of the opinion that it will be equitable if interest at the rate of 11% per annum is granted to the plaintiff. Thus, a decree of Rs.1,51,601/ alongwith interest @ 11% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization, is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court (SUMIT DASS)
on 29.01.2014. SCJCUMRC NORTH
(This judgment contains four pages and ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
each page bears my signature.)
Suit No. 48/08. 4 of 4
ICICI BANK LTD VS Parmod Kumar
Suit No. : 48/2008
29.01.2014.
Present: Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Defendant is exparte.
Final arguments heard.
Vide separate judgment of even date, suit of the plaintiff is decreed. Costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
(SUMIT DASS) ACJcumRC (North West) Rohini Courts, Delhi/29.01.2014 Suit No. 48/08. 5 of 4 ICICI BANK LTD VS Parmod Kumar