Delhi District Court
M/S Icici Bank Limited vs Old Address on 11 May, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-11(CENTRAL):
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
Civil Suit No. 2216/2017
CNR No.DLCT01-10090632017
M/S ICICI BANK LIMITED,
Having its Registered Office At:
Landmark, Race Course Circle,
Vadodara-39007,
Having its Branch Office At:
E-Block, Videocon Tower,
Jhandewalan Extention, New Delhi-110055.
Through its Authorised Representative Mr. Mohit Grover
........Plaintiff
Vs
OLD ADDRESS
Mr. Pawan Kumar,
S/o Sh. Lekh Ram Sharma,
(BORROWER)
R/o F4/64, Sec-4,
Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad-201001
NEW ADDRESS
Mr. Pawan Kumar,
S/o Sh. Lekh Ram Sharma,
(BORROWER)
R/o 111-A/144
Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad-201001
...... Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.8,26,813.61ps (EIGHT LAKHS
TWENTY SIX THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTEEN AND
SIXTY ONE PAISA ALONGWITH INTEREST & COSTS
Date of institution of suit : 09.06.2017
Date of Assignment to this court : 22.02.2022
Date of hearing final argument : 11.05.2022
Date of Judgement : 11.05.2022
Civil Suit No. 2216/2017 ICICI bank Ltd. Vs. Pawan Kumar 1/7
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment (Ex-parte) I shall conscientiously adjudicate upon the suit of plaintiff for recovery of Rs.8,26,813.61/- alongwith agreed interest pendentelite and future @ 10.50% per annum at monthly rests from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
2. Eschewing prolix details to the pleadings crystallizing the same the plaintiff is stated to be a Body Corporate constituted under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and is having its registered office at Land Mark, Race Course, Circle Vadodra-390007 and having its branch office at E-Block, Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055. The present suit has been filed by Sh. Mohit Grover who is stated to be duly authorized representative of the plaintiff bank and is fully conversant with the facts of the case as per the information received and derived from the records and constituted Attorney of the plaintiff bank and as such duly empowered to sign verify the plaint, pleadings and documents and do all the necessary act, proceedings on behalf of the plaintiff bank. He is stated to have been authorized specially by the plaintiff bank vide a power of attorney dated 25.01.2008 for the purpose of the instant suit.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant approached the plaintiff bank in the month of May 2016 and requested for grant of loan of Rs. Rs.7,60,0001/- for purchase of a vehicle namely HYUNDAI I-20 ASTA PETROL and entered into loan agreement under the loan cum hypothecation scheme of the plaintiff bank. On consideration, the loan was sanctioned and the defendant executed credit facility application Form for said facility and several other documents in favour of the plaintiff bank and agreed to abide by Civil Suit No. 2216/2017 ICICI bank Ltd. Vs. Pawan Kumar 2/7 the standard terms and conditions applicable at the time of execution of the loan application. The defendant agreed to repay the said loan in 60 equated monthly installments with interest for Rs. 16,335/- per month. The loan agreement No.LAGHZ00034342173 was executed. It is further the case of the plaintiff bank that the plaintiff bank sanctioned and disbursed the abovesaid loan amount of Rs. 7,57,450/- on 22.03.2016 to the dealer "Kandhari Auto Mobiles Pvt" and the defendant executed the Credit Facility Agreement alongwith other documents in favour of the plaintiff at Delhi. It is further the case of the plaintiff that after the receipt of the loan and enjoying the same, the defendant failed to adhere to the financial discipline of the repayment of the loan. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff duly notified to the defendant vide a notice to make the payment of the outstanding amount and the plaintiff has finally decided to withdraw the facility provided to the defendant by a loan recall-cum-demand notice dated 17.11.2016 which was duly sent through registered/speed post but the defendant despite of said notice, has neither cared to reply to the notice nor has made any effort to pay the outstanding amount. As per the accounts maintained by the plaintiff bank, the defendant has paid an amount of Rs. 65,340.00 (4 installments) and has defaulted in repayment of Rs. 1,30,680.00 (8 equated monthly installments and Rs. 19,762.00/- towards late payment and cheque bouncing charges totaling to Rs. 1,50,442.00/-) besides future installments of Rs. 7,79,633.10/- as on 06.04.2017. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the cause of action was firstly arose on 18.05.2016 when the agreement was entered between the parties and the loan amount was disbursed for the purchase of the vehicle. It also accrued when upon the disbursement of the loan amount said vehicle was delivered to the defendant. It also accrued when the demands were made by the officials of the plaintiff verbally, telephonically and as well as by the personal visits of the officials of the plaintiff. It also accrued when notice dated 17.11.2016 were sent to the defendant. Hence the present suit for recovery of Civil Suit No. 2216/2017 ICICI bank Ltd. Vs. Pawan Kumar 3/7 Rs.8,26813.61/- @ 10.50% with monthly rests per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
4. Vide order dated 09.06.2017 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this court, an application u/o 40 Rule 1 CPC was allowed. The Ld. Predecessor of this court has issued summons for settlement of issues to the defendant. The defendant could not be served by ordinary mode and was directed to be served by way of publication in the Newspaper "Rashtriya Sahara" vide order dated 16.12.2020 of Ld. Predecessor of this court. The defendant was, accordingly served by way of substituted service on19.03.2021. However, the defendant failed to appear before the court despite service by way of publication and accordingly, was proceeded exparte vide order dated 25.08.2021.
5. Though the defendant was exparte and has not filed any WS/refutation to the claim made by plaintiff bank, yet inadvertently Ld. Predecessor framed following issues on 25.08.2021:-
Issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery alongwith interest as prayed for? OPP. (2) Relief.
6. During the pendency of the suit, an application u/o VI Rule 17 R/w Section 151 CPC was moved on behalf of the plaintiff bank with the prayer to amend the plaint to the extent that an amount of Rs. 8,26,813,61 as claimed be read as Rs.8,26,813.61ps as the same has been wrongly written due to clerical and typographical mistake. The application was duly considered and was allowed vide order dated 10.05.2022 subject to cost of Rs. 1000/- to be deposited in DSLSA keeping in view the amendment formal in nature and the summons for settlement of issues was served upon the defendant with correct Civil Suit No. 2216/2017 ICICI bank Ltd. Vs. Pawan Kumar 4/7 amount whereafter which the plaintiff led the evidence of Sh. Mohit Grover as PW-1. The amended suit was also taken on record.
7. Plaintiff in support of its case got examined one Sh. Mohit Grover, who its the authorized representative as PW1. The witness has reiterated the contents of the plaint on oath and has stated that a Power of Attorney has been executed in his favour which he has got exhibited on record as Ex.PW1/1 by which he was duly authorized, empowered and competent to sign and verify the pleadings for and on behalf of the plaintiff bank, institute the suit in the court, prosecute the suit and to do all acts on behalf of the plaintiff bank. He has further deposed that the mode and manner in which the loan applications were made, loan was sanctioned and the credit facilities for auto -loan was granted vide Loan agreement No. LAGHZ00034342173. He further got exhibited Credit Facility Application alongwith terms and conditions of the loan have also got exhibited on record as Ex.PW1/2. He has got exhibited Deed of Hypothecation as Ex PW1/3 and irrecoverable Power of Attorney as Ex PW1/4. He has also got exhibited on record the notice dated 17.11.2016 whereby which the loan facility available to the defendant was recalled as Ex.PW1/5. He has further deposed that as per the statement of accounts, the defendant is liable to pay a total sum of Rs.8,26,813.61/- towards principal, interest and other dues as on date. The statement of account dated 06.04.2017 got exhibited as Ex.PW1/6 which is certified under section 2A of Bankers Books of Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/7. The entire computerized record got certified with certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 vide Ex.PW1/8. As per deposition of PW1, the defendant has neither reply to the said notice nor pay the outstanding amount. The witness has reiterated that the plaintiff is entitled to recover of loan amount alongwith interest against the defendant as prayed. The Plaintiff bank did not examined any other witness and vide statement dated 16.12.2021, the plaintiff's evidence was closed.
Civil Suit No. 2216/2017 ICICI bank Ltd. Vs. Pawan Kumar 5/7
8. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff and perused the entire record including the pleadings, documents and oral testimony of PW1 Shri Mohit Grover on record. Since the defendant has remained ex parte , the court shall consider the testimony of witness and the documents as they exist being un-rebutted and un-challenged. It may be seen that the case of the plaintiff is based on loan No. LAGHZ00034342173. The documents including Credit Facility Application alongwith terms and conditions of the loans are Ex PW- 1/2 where by which the defendant has availed the aforesaid loan and agreed to repay the said loan in 60 Equated monthly installment of Rs.16,335/- with interest as per the repayment schedule.
9. As per the case of the plaintiff, the defendant has failed to maintain the financial discipline or repay the loan amount. As per the Statement of account Ex PW-1/6 mainted by the plaintiff, defendant is liable to pay total sum of Rs.8,26813.61/-. Statement of account has been duly certified under the Banker's Book of Evidence Act and is, as such admissible in law. The legal notice dated 17.11.2016 Ex.PW1/5 also shows that the defendant has failed to repay the loan amount. Since the testimony of PW-1 has remained largely unrebutted and unchallenged there is no reason for the court to disbelieve either the testimony of PW-1 or documents filed by the plaintiff more particularly Ex PW-1/6 which is upto date statement of account duly filed by the plaintiff in accordance with law. The court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has been successful in establishing its case to the extent of preponderance of probabilities. Plaintiff therefore succeeds. Suit of the plaintiff is, accordingly decreed. The plaintiff is entitled to recover of Rs.8,26813.61/- (rounded off to Rs.8,26814/- ) against the defendant. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to an interest @ 7.5% per annum pendentelite and future which is just & fair and in synchrony with the prevailing rate of interests and in the facts Civil Suit No. 2216/2017 ICICI bank Ltd. Vs. Pawan Kumar 6/7 and circumstances of the case on such remaining amount after adjustment, from the date of filing the suit till the date of its realization. In the specific fact and circumstances of the case plaintiff bank shall also be entitled to the costs of the suit .
10. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due completion.
(MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA)
DATED 11.05.2022 ADJ-11/CENTRAL/DELHI
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT .
Civil Suit No. 2216/2017 ICICI bank Ltd. Vs. Pawan Kumar 7/7