Delhi District Court
Corporation Bank vs . Atul Dhir on 4 November, 2019
Corporation Bank vs. Atul Dhir
Civil Suit No: 93279/16
IN THE COURT OF RAHUL VERMA, CIVIL JUDGE 07,
CENTRAL DISTT., TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Civil Suit No : 93279/16
CNR no. : DLCT030000262013
Date of Institution: 03.06.2013
Date of Decision: 04.11.2019
Corporation Bank
LIC Card Centre, Delhi,
A body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition
and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (Act No.3 of 1980) having its
Head Office at Mangalore (South Kanara, Karnataka State)
and having a branch at Corporation Bank, LIC Card Centre,
16/10, FF, Main Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005.
...............Plaintiff.
Versus
Atul Dhir
S/o Tarsem Pal Dhir
R/o 1809, West Chuna Mandi,
Pahar Ganj, New Delhi.
.............Defendant.
Suit for recovery of Rs. 42,205/
Present: None.
Judgment (exparte) :
1.This is a suit for recovery of Rs.42,205/ along with pendente lite and future interest @ 2.5% per month filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. As per the averments made in the plaint, the brief facts are that the plaintiff is nationalized bank and is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (Act No.3 of 1980) having its Head Office at Mangalore (South Kanara, Karnataka State) and having a branch at Corporation Bank, LIC Card Centre, 16/10, FF, Main Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005. Sh. A.V. Ambastha, Chief Manager is constituted attorney and is a principal officer of the plaintiff bank.
Page 1 of 4(Rahul Verma) Civil Judge07, Central, Delhi Corporation Bank vs. Atul Dhir Civil Suit No: 93279/16
3. The LIC Card is issued by LIC Cards Services Ltd. in association with the Corporation Bank. The LIC Card account is maintained by Corporation Bank and LIC Card is distributed and marketed by LIC Cards Services Ltd. The defendant approached the plaintiff bank for issuing a LIC Credit Card and submitted the duly filled and signed application form alongwith necessary supporting documents. After due consideration of the request of defendant, the plaintiff bank issued LIC Credit Card No.4628470008005000 to the defendant with a limit of Rs.70,000/ on 20.03.2010. Thereafter, the defendant availed and used LIC Credit Card from time to time for purchasing the various goods. The whole transactions of buying and purchasing by the defendant were part and parcel of tripartite agreement and were reflected in the statement of account of the defendant. As per terms & conditions of the LIC Credit Card user guide, defendant was liable to make the payments of all the outstandings of the said credit card and other charges, as applicable for the retentions and utilize the said credit card. The defendant has been regularly billed by means of periodical monthly statement
(s) issued by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has repeatedly called upon the defendant to clear and liquidate the dues, However, all the demands proved futile and the account of the defendant became highly regular from almost the very beginning. The plaintiff bank repeatedly asked the defendant to regularize the operation in the LIC Card account but the same was not regularized. Finally, the plaintiff bank issued a legal notice dated 20.02.13 through registered post on 05.03.13 calling upon the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.35,747.35/ which was due, payable and outstanding as on 20.02.13 against the defendant. The defendant was also liable to pay finance charges, late payment, over limit and other charges thereon to the plaintiff. As per the RBI norms, the said LIC Credit Card account of the defendant became Non Performing Asset (NPA) w.e.f. 07.09.2010. It has been submitted that on 26.05.13, an amount of Rs.42,205/ is due and payable by the defendant alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 2.5% per month alongwith finance charges, late payment, over limit and other charges thereon from the date of filing of the present suit till its actual realization. Hence, the present suit.
4. The defendant was duly served by way of publication. However, due to non appearance of the defendant, he was proceeded exparte vide order dt. 13.08.15.
Page 2 of 4(Rahul Verma) Civil Judge07, Central, Delhi Corporation Bank vs. Atul Dhir Civil Suit No: 93279/16
5. To substantiate its case, the plaintiff has examined one witness Sh. Ashwin Tirkey as PW1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He has relied upon the following documents : Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) Power of Attorney Ex. PW1/2 Copy of agreement dated 30.03.2009 Ex. PW1/3 (colly) Original credit card application form with supporting documents Ex. PW1/4 Screen Shot Ex. PW1/5 (colly) Legal notice with registered post receipt Ex. PW1/6 (colly) Statement of Account alongwith Certificate certifying the said statement of account Ex. PW1/7 (OSR) Agreement between Corporation Bank and OPUS Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Ex. PW1/8 Plaint alongwith supporting documents
Mark B Most Important Terms & conditions (MITC)
6. Thereafter, plaintiff's evidence was closed and matter was adjourned for exparte final arguments.
7. I have heard exparte arguments on behalf of the plaintiff and have also perused the record carefully.
8. The present suit has been filed within the limitation period. The plaintiff has duly proved the fact of extending credit card facility to the defendant. Further, the statement of account Ex.PW1/6 (colly) substantiates the stand of the plaintiff that the defendant is liable for payment of Rs.42,205/ to the plaintiff pursuant to use of credit card. All the averments made by the plaintiff stand duly proved by way of the aforestated documents. Hence, the plaintiff has duly discharged its burden of proof under section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It was for the defendant to dispute the contractual relationship with the plaintiff or to dispute the genuineness and correctness of the statement of accounts or to establish that outstanding amount claimed or part thereof has already been paid to the plaintiff. However, the defendant has failed to do so. The testimony of the PW1 has gone unchallenged, uncontroverted and unrebutted. Since the Page 3 of 4 (Rahul Verma) Civil Judge07, Central, Delhi Corporation Bank vs. Atul Dhir Civil Suit No: 93279/16 defendant was proceeded exparte and no evidence was led by the defendant, there is nothing on record which casts any doubt on the testimony of PW1. Accordingly, the plaintiff has successfully proved its case on a scale of balance of probabilities.
9. The plaintiff has also claimed interest at the rate of 2.5% per month on the decreetal amount from filing of the suit till realization. However, considering the prevailing market conditions, it is not considered equitable to grant this exorbitantly high rate of interest. It is further noticed from the statement of account Ex. PW1/6 (colly) that the substantial part of the amount claimed of Rs. 42,205/ is already in the nature of penalty consisting of components such as late payment fee, interest charges and service tax. Accordingly, in considered opinion of this court, simple interest at the rate of 4% per annum is reasonable and equitable.
10. In view of the above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and the following relief is being given to the plaintiff:
a) A decree of Rs. 42,205/ is being passed in the favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, alongwith interest @ 4% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the decreetal amount.
b) Costs of the suit are also awarded in the favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
11. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
12. File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL VERMA
Date:
VERMA 2019.11.05
16:02:26
+0530
Pronounced in open court: (Rahul Verma )
Dated: 04.11.2019 Civil Judge07, Central,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Note : This Judgment contains four pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me.
(Rahul Verma ) Civil Judge07, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Page 4 of 4 (Rahul Verma) Civil Judge07, Central, Delhi