Delhi District Court
Corporation Bank vs . Mukesh Kumar on 7 May, 2016
Corporation Bank Vs. Mukesh Kumar
IN THE COURT OF MS. MAHIMA RAI : CIVIL JUDGE 02
(CENTRAL),TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Suit No. 73/13
Unique ID no. : 02401C0283372013
Corporation Bank
LIC Card Centre, Delhi.
A body Corporate constituted under the
Banking Companies (Acquisition & 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 Delhi110005. .......... Plaintiff
VERSUS
Sh. Mukesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Daya Chand
R/o C56, Adhyapak Nagar
Nangloi, Delhi
.........Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 73,264.67
(Rupees Seventy Three Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Four and Sixty
Seven Paisa only)
Date of institution : 06.06.2013
Date for reserving for orders : 25.04.2016
Date of decision : 07.05.2016
Page 1 of 6
Corporation Bank Vs. Mukesh Kumar
E X - P A R T E J U D G M E N T
1.Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the present suit filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs. 73,264.67/ alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 2.5 % per month from the date of filing of the present suit till its actual realization against the defendant alongwith costs of the suit. The suit was initially filed U/o 37 CPC but vide order dated 10.03.2014, the same was treated as ordinary suit.
2. Briefly stated the facts as averred by the plaintiff in the plaint which are necessary for the disposal of the present suit are as follows: a. The plaintiff is a nationalized bank having its head office at Mangalore and having a branch at Corporation Bank, LIC Card Centre, 16/10, FF, Main Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The present suit has been filed through AR Sh. A.V. Ambastha who is duly authorized by way Power of attorney.
b. It is the case of the plaintiff that the LIC Cards Services Ltd. used to issue LIC Card in association with the Corporation Bank and the LIC Card account is maintained by Corporation Bank and the LIC Card is distributed and marketed by the LIC Cards Services Ltd.
c. It is stated that the defendant approached the plaintiff bank for issuing a LIC Credit Card and filed appropriate application alongwith the relevant documents. After due consideration, plaintiff bank issued a LIC Credit Card No. 4628460005526009 to defendant with a limit of Page 2 of 6 Corporation Bank Vs. Mukesh Kumar Rs. 15,000/ on 03.02.2010. Pursuant to the delivery of LIC Credit card to defendant, plaintiff opened and has maintained account in the name of defendant having account LIC Credit Card No. 4628460005526009.
d. It is stated that the defendant availed and used the LIC credit card in purchasing various goods from the market, paying various bills, buying various services and making cash payments etc. All the transactions of buying and purchasing by the defendant are part and parcel of tripartite agreement entered into by the plaintiff with the VISA and Merchant Establishments and all the payments have been made by the plaintiff bank.
e. It is stated that as per the LIC Credit Card user guide, defendant is 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 and for the said purpose, defendant has been regularly billed by means of periodical monthly statement (s) issued by the plaintiff by way of courier, email and SMS in relation to the said credit card. But despite several reminders and request, defendant failed to make the payment.
f. It is stated that defendant's account was classified as Non Performing Asset on 02.09.2010. Left with no alternative, plaintiff bank issued a legal notice dated 20.02.2013 to the defendant calling upon him to clear his dues amounting to Rs. 59,409.25 as on 20.02.2013 but defendant has failed to make the payment.
Page 3 of 6Corporation Bank Vs. Mukesh Kumar
3. The defendant was duly served with summons for settlement and was deemed to be served and proceeded exparte by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 30.03.2015.
4. In its exparte evidence, the plaintiff bank has examined Sh. Ashwin Tirkey as PW1. PW1 has placed reliance on the power of attorney i.e. Ex. PW1/1 (OSR), copy of power of attorney of Mr. A.V. Ambastha (previous AR) i.e. Mark A, copy of agreement executed between plaintiff bank and LIC Card Services Ltd. i.e. Ex. PW1/2 (OSR), original credit card application form and supporting documents i.e. Ex. PW1/3 (colly.), copy of MITC (Most Important Terms & Conditions) i.e. Mark B, computer generated screen shot i.e. PW1/5, legal notice with receipt i.e. Ex. PW1/6 (colly), the statement of account alongwith 65 B certificate i.e. Ex. PW1/7 (colly), the agreement between Corporation Bank and Opus Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd. i.e. Ex. PW1/8 (OSR), the plaint alongwith supporting documents i.e. Ex. PW1/9 (colly).
5. Exparte final arguments were addressed by Ld. counsel for the plaintiff.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. In the present matter, it is evident from the record that the plaintiff bank issued a LIC Credit Card No. 4628460005526009 to the defendant with a limit of Rs. 15,000/ on 03.02.2010. The defendant has made transaction from the said card and the said payment has been made Page 4 of 6 Corporation Bank Vs. Mukesh Kumar by the plaintiff bank. As per the LIC Credit Card account of the defendant, the plaintiff is liable to make the payment of Rs. 59,409.26 ps as on 20.02.2013. Copy of agreement dated 30.03.2009 executed between plaintiff bank and LIC Card Services Ltd. Ex. PW1/2 (OSR), original credit card application form and supporting documents i.e. Ex. PW1/3 (colly), copy of MITC (Most Important Terms & Conditions) is Mark B, computer generated screen shot i.e. Ex.PW1/5, legal notice with receipt i.e. Ex. PW1/6 (colly), the statement of account alongwith 65 B certificate is. Ex. PW1/7 (colly), the agreement between Corporation Bank and Opus Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd. i.e. Ex.PW1/8 and plaint along with supporting documents is Ex.PW1/9.
8. The suit was filed within the period of prescribed limitation. The plaintiff has further claimed interest @ 2.5% p.m. from the date of filing the suit till the date of realization of the decreetal amount alongwith cost. In these facts and circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that the testimony of PW1 remained unrebutted and unchallenged throughout and accordingly the plaintiff is entitled for money decree of Rs. 73,264.67 ps. and pendentelite interest along with the costs of the suit.
9. Relief The plaintiff is entitled for money decree of Rs. 73,264.67 ps. and pendentelite interest. However, the rate of interest as sought by the plaintiff @ 2.5% p.m. is exorbitant and not in consonance with the guilt.
Page 5 of 6Corporation Bank Vs. Mukesh Kumar Hence, interest @ 8% p.a. is granted on decreetal amount of Rs. 73,264.67 ps. from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree along with costs.
10. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
11. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court today i. e. on 07.05.2016. ( Mahima Rai ) Civil Judge02 (Central) Delhi.
Page 6 of 6