Bangalore District Court
Bank Of Baroda vs Mr. Rajkumar.K on 21 April, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU (SCCH-22)
PRESENT : SMT. SHAKUNTHALA.S
B.A., LL.B.,
XX Additional Small Causes Judge,
& Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
DATED : This the 21th Day of April, 2021.
S.C.No.840/2020
PLAINTIFF - Bank of Baroda
(Earlier Dena Bank),
A body Corporate Constituted by and
under the Banking Companies( Acquisition
and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,1970,
having Head Office situtated at Baroda Bhavan,
R.C Dutt Road, Alkapuri, Vadodara, Gujarat,
State and Interalia Branch office at
Peenya Branch, Bangalore,
Represented by its Chief Manager and P.A Holder
Mr. Sanjay Wali S/o. Shivaputra Wali,
Aged about 38 Years.
(Rep. By Sri. Nagaraj Damodar, Adv.,)
- Versus -
DEFENDANT - Mr. Rajkumar.K,
Aged about 58 years,
S/o. Krishne Gowda,
R/at 137, 1st Main, 6th Cross,
Manjunath Nagara, Bagalgunte
Bangalore-560073.
(Ex-parte)
SCCH-22 2 S.C.840/2020
1. Date of Institution : 29.09.2020
2. Nature of Suit : Recovery of Money.
3. Date of commencement of
Recording Evidence : 03.04.2021
4. Date of Judgment : 21.04.2021
5. Total Duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s
00 06 24
:: JUDGMENT ::
This is the suit filed by plaintiff Bank against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,57,466/- with interest at the rate of 9.95% p.a and penal interest at 2% p.a compounded monthly from 22.09.2020 till the date of realization of the said amount.
2. The brief case of the plaintiff bank is as under:
According to plaintiff Vijaya bank and Dena Bank have been amalgamated with plaintiff Bank and upon the said amalgamation the name of the Bank declared to be surviving by name of plaintiff and the bank is creditor wherein defendant availed vehicle loan of Rs.1,25,000/- by executing necessary documents on 17.10.2012 and he agreed to repay the loan amount SCCH-22 3 S.C.840/2020 within 60 monthly installments of Rs.2,200/- each along with interest at 12.25% p.a with monthly rests after moratorium of 03 months. That as agreed he failed to repay the loan amount and became defaulter. In spite of repeated demand he failed to discharge the outstanding liability and became defaulter. Hence got filed this suit for the aforesaid reliefs.
3. In response to the summons, though served on the defendant not chosen to appear before the court and placed Ex- parte.
4. Plaintiff in order to prove its case, authorized signatory and Manager of the plaintiff bank Anantaram Misra got examined himself as P.W.1 and in support of oral evidence got marked 7 documents, at Ex.P1 to Ex.P7.
5. The oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff remained unchallenged and un controverted.
6. Heard arguments.
7. On perusal of oral as well as documentary evidence , the points that arise for my determination are;
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the SCCH-22 4 S.C.840/2020 defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- vehicle loan by executing all loan documents and also by hypothicating the vehicle?
2. Whether the plaintiff entitle for the interest and penal interest? If so, at what rate?
3. Whether the plaintiff entitle for the relief as sought for?
4. What order or decree?
8. My findings on the above points are as under;
Point No.1 - Partly in the Affirmative Point No.2 - Partly in the Affirmative.
Point No.3 - As per final order for the following reasons.
:: REASONS ::
POINT No.1 and 2:-
9. 13. For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts these points are taken together for common discussion.
10. In order to prove the availment of loan by the defendant for the purpose of vehicle loan of Rs.1,25,000/- and he has executed the necessary documents and also agreeing to repay the said loan within 60 monthly installments with interest at 12.25% p.a and in default 2% p.a, the chief Manager of the plaintiff bank SCCH-22 5 S.C.840/2020 got examined himself as PW.1 and he has reiterated in his affidavit filed in lieu of his examination-in-chief and in order to prove its case got marked the loan application at Ex.P1.
11. On perusal of Ex.P1 loan application which clearly discloses, the defendant approached the plaintiff bank for the purpose of availment of loan for purchasing vehicle and Ex.P1 in which the signature of defendant finds a place which clearly establishes the approach made by him to the plaintiff Bank for availing loan.
12. Ex.P2 the sanctioned letter under which the loan of Rs.1,25,000/- has been sanctioned to the defendant on 17.10.2012. Ex.P3 is the on demand pro-note executed on 17.10.2012 and he agreed that on demand to pay the loan of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest as agreed and his signature also finds a place.
13. Ex.P4 is the hypothication agreement under which he hypothicated the vehicle for the purpose of availing the loan and his signature finds a place.
14. Ex.P5 is the letter of General lien and Ex.P6 is the B Register extract in respect of three wheeler tourer in the name of SCCH-22 6 S.C.840/2020 defendant which was hypothicated under Ex.P4. Ex.P7 is the statement of account it clearly discloses the loan of Rs.1,25,000/- has been credited to the account of defendant on 17.10.2012 and the account standing in the name of defendant.
15. On perusal of Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 which clearly establishes the approach as well as the availment of loan by the defendant and execution of Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 documents in favour of the Bank and Ex.P7 itself clearly clinches the matter at issue. The defendant not choosen to neither contest the case nor challenged Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 and the case of plaintiff remained unchallenged and unrebutted.
16. According to PW.1 defendant agreed to pay the loan amount with interest at 12.25% p.a and also 2% in case of default. Though he got produced Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and in Ex.P2 the interest rate has been mentioned as 12.25% and also penal interest of 2% as agreed by him accordingly in the existence of agreed rate of interest but the plaintiff in the present suit claimed for interest normaly at the rate of 9.95%, accordingly in the existence of oral as well as the documentary evidence moreover Under Sec. 34 CPC given discretion to the court and at this stage, it is relevant to SCCH-22 7 S.C.840/2020 mention Sec.34, which reads, thus;
(1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent, per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit :
Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent, per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions."
17. Accordingly though defendant agreed to pay the rate of interest but if the defendant is directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a on the principal amount by considering the present scenario of pandemic-19 no in justice or hardship, would be caused to SCCH-22 8 S.C.840/2020 plaintiff accordingly considering the nature of loan, I answered these points partly in the affirmative
18. Point No.3: For the above reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed with costs.
Defendant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,57,466/ together with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realization of the decree amount.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21th day of April, 2021) (SHAKUNTHALA.S.) XX A.S.C.J. & A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
:: ANNEXURE ::
Witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff:
P.W.1 - Sri. Anantaram Misra ` Documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff:SCCH-22 9 S.C.840/2020
Ex.P.1 - Loan Application. Ex.P.2 - Loan Sanction letter Ex.P.3 - On Demand pronote Ex.P.4 - Hypothecation to secure vehicle Ex.P.5 - Letter of General lean Ex.P.6 - B registrar extract Ex.P.7 - Statement of account
Witnesses examined on behalf of the defendant:
- Nil -
Documents marked on behalf of the defendant:
- Nil -
(SHAKUNTHALA.S.) XX A.S.C.J. & A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.