Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Office At Mangalore vs Mr. Rajesh Upadhyay on 20 January, 2015

    IN THE COURT OF JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH, CIVIL JUDGE,
                       TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI


Suit no.159/13
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, Karnataka 
and Having its branch at :
Corporation Bank, LIC Card Centre,
16/10, FF, Main Arya Samaj Road, 
Karol Bagh, New Delhi­110005.                                             ......Plaintiff

                                     Versus

Mr. Rajesh Upadhyay
R/o 101, Gali  no.1, 
Sanjay Nagar, Adarsh Nagar, 
New Delhi­110033  

Also at: 

Shop no.27, Pushpa Market, 
Central Market, Lajpat Nagar,
Delhi­110024.                                                          ......Defendant


SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.95,039.39/­ ALONG WITH PENDENTELITE 
           AND FUTURE INTEREST @ 2.5% PER MONTH


Date of Institution                                 :      04.09.2013
Date of reserving Judgment                          :      13.01.2015
Date of pronouncement                               :      30.01.2015

Suit no.159/13         Corporation Bank Vs. Rajesh Upadhyay                 Page No. 1 of 8
 EX­PARTE JUDGMENT


                 This   Judgment   shall   dispose   the   suit   of   the   plaintiff   filed 

against   the   defendants   praying   for   a   decree   of   recovery   of 

Rs.95,039.39/­ along with pendente lite and future interest @ 2.5% per 

month.



2.               Brief facts necessary for deciding the present suit are as 

follows:   The   plaintiff   is   a   body   corporate   constituted   and   functioning 

under   the   Banking   Companies   (Acquisition   and   Transfer   of 

Undertakings)   Act,   1970   having   its   Head   Office   at   Mangalore, 

Karnataka and having its branch at Corporation Bank, LIC Card Centre, 

16/10, FF, Main Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi­110005. The 

present suit has been filed by Sh. A.V. Ambastha, Chief Manager  and 

Attorney of the Plaintiff bank duly authorized in this regard. 



3.               It is the case of the plaintiff that the LIC Card is issued by 

LIC Cards Services Ltd. in association with the Corporation Bank. The 

LIC Card account is maintained by the Corporation Bank and the LIC 

Card   is   distributed   and   marketed   by   LIC   Cards   Services   Ltd..   The 


Suit no.159/13              Corporation Bank Vs. Rajesh Upadhyay               Page No. 2 of 8
 defendant approached the plaintiff and applied for grant of LIC Credit 

Card   facility.   In   pursuance   of   the   same,   the   plaintiff   bank   had 

sanctioned   and   issued   an   LIC   credit   card   bearing 

No.4628460008688004   with   a   limit   of   Rs.15,000/­.   The   defendant 

utilized the said credit card for making purchases and withdrawing cash 

from ATMs but he failed to make the payment against the bills raised.  A 

legal notice dated 20.07.2013  was issued to the defendant demanding 

the outstanding amount of Rs.85,568.23/­. As on 21.08.2013, a debit 

balance of Rs.95,039.39/­ was due in accounts of the plaintiff from the 

defendant.   However,   when   the   payment   was   not   made   even   after 

receiving the notice, the instant suit was filed to recover the aforesaid 

amount of Rs.95,039.39 /­ and interest thereon.



4.               Originally the suit was filed under the provisions of Order 37 

of the CPC. However, vide order dated 27.11.2013, it was directed to be 

treated as an ordinary suit. 



5.              The defendant despite his service by way of publication in 

the newspaper "The Statesman" has not appeared and was accordingly 

proceeded against ex­parte  vide order  dated 05.05.2014. The matter 

Suit no.159/13            Corporation Bank Vs. Rajesh Upadhyay        Page No. 3 of 8
 was then fixed for ex­parte plaintiff evidence.



6.               In   its   evidence   the   plaintiff   bank   examined   Sh.   Ashwin 

Tirkey, Authorized Representative of the plaintiff bank as PW1 who in 

his evidence by way of affidavit reiterated most of the averments as 

made in the plaint. The said PW1 relied upon and produced on record 

the following documents:



                 1.

The original applications of LIC Credit Card by the defendant as Ex. PW1/1. (Colly).

2. True copies of PAN card, Driving License, Copy of ITS, etc of the defendant as Ex.

PW1/2. (Colly).

3. Computer generated LIC Credit Card's statements / bills of the defendant from 21/04/2010 to 21/08/2013 as Ex. PW1/3.

(Colly).

4. Office copy of Recall letter dated 20/07/2013 by the plaintiff to defendant along with postal receipt dated 27/07/2013 as Ex. PW1/4.

(Colly).

Suit no.159/13 Corporation Bank Vs. Rajesh Upadhyay Page No. 4 of 8

5. Computer generated card holder details / summary as Ex. PW1/5.

6. Certificate of statement of entries as Ex. PW1/6.

7. Original terms and conditions of LIC Credit Card as Ex. PW1/7. (Colly).

8. True copy of agreement for terms of C Branded White Label Credit Card dated 30/03/2009 executed between Corporation Bank and LIC card Services Ltd. as Ex.

PW1/8. (Colly).

9. True copy of Credit Card Services Level Agreement executed between Opus Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd and Corporation Bank as Ex. PW1/9. (Colly).

10. Copy of Power of Attorney of Sh. Aswin Tirkey, Manager, Corporation Bank, LIC card center 16/10,FF, Main Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi­ 110005 as Ex. PW1/10.

(Colly). (OSR).

Suit no.159/13 Corporation Bank Vs. Rajesh Upadhyay Page No. 5 of 8

7. Thereafter the ex parte plaintiff evidence was closed and the matter was listed for ex parte final arguments.

8. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and have perused the case file.

9. In the present case the defendant despite been served with the summons of the suit, has chosen not to contest the suit and in this scenario the case of the plaintiff remains unrebutted and non challenged and this court finds no reason to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff.

10. A perusal of the statement of account Ex.PW1/3 (colly) reveals that the defendant had an outstanding due of Rs.12,975.92/­ as per the statement dated 21.09.2010. Thereafter, the statement of account does not record either any usage or payment for the Credit Card in question.

11. This court is of a view that the plaintiff had waited for as long as three years to file the present suit despite the fact that the Suit no.159/13 Corporation Bank Vs. Rajesh Upadhyay Page No. 6 of 8 defendant has not paid any amount since 21.09.2010 which, as per the statement of the same date, was the last date of payment to be made by the defendant. The recall notice dated 20.07.2013 has also been issued immediately prior to filing the present suit. The plaintiff has not placed on record any material to show that the amount due as on 21.09.2010 was ever demanded from the defendant from that date till 20.07.2013. In the opinion of the court it is highly unjust to permit the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs.95,039.39/­ along with interest thereon in the circumstances of the defendant being liable to pay only Rs.12,975.92/­ on 21.09.2010. The plaintiff has not declared the account of the defendant a "Non­Performing Asset" (NPA) within a reasonable time of default of the defendant in making the repayment. It is against all principles of fair commercial transactions if the plaintiff is permitted to seek an amount which is about eight times of the principal amount that to within a period of three years.

12. This court decrees the present suit to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.12,975.92/­ along with interest @ 6% per annum from 21.09.2010 till the realization of the said amount. The plaintiff is also held entitled to the costs of the suit. Decree sheet be Suit no.159/13 Corporation Bank Vs. Rajesh Upadhyay Page No. 7 of 8 prepared accordingly. The suit of the plaintiff is disposed off in aforesaid terms. File be consigned to the Record Room after necessary compliance.

Announced in the open court (Jitendra Pratap Singh) on 30.01.2015. Civil Judge, Central ­09 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (This Judgment consists of 8 pages and all the pages are duly signed by me.) Suit no.159/13 Corporation Bank Vs. Rajesh Upadhyay Page No. 8 of 8 Suit no.159/13 30.01.2015 Present : None.

Vide separate Judgment of even date the suit of the plaintiff is decreed along with costs of the suit. Any application pending in the case is hereby dismissed for not being pressed for. Decree sheet is directed to be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance.

(Jitendra Pratap Singh) CJ/C/DELHI/30.01.2015 Suit no.159/13 Corporation Bank Vs. Rajesh Upadhyay Page No. 9 of 8