Bangalore District Court
Canara Bank vs Sri. Prabhakar S/O Ramanjulu on 21 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-22)
Present: Smt. Suvarna K. Mirji, B.Com., LL.B.(Spl).,
XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU.
OS No.25305/2020
Dated this 21st day of March 2022
Plaintiff:- Canara Bank, Avani Arcade,
No.L-1135, Ground Floor,
17th Cross, 80 feet Road,
Sector-7, HSR Layout Branch,
Bangalore 560 102,
Represented by its
Senior Manager,
Smt. Rachakonda Sumalahtha
W/o D. Tulsidas,
aged about 49 years.
(Rep by - S.M. Manjunatha Associates)
V/S
Defendant:- Sri. Prabhakar S/o Ramanjulu,
aged about 25 years,
R/at No. 42, BTS Layout,
Arakere, B.G. Road,
Bengalore- 560 076.
Also at No. 84/3, Bovi Colony,
Arekere, BG Road, Bangalore 560 076.
2
Judgment OS. No.25305/2020
Also at Donabailu,
Malepadu, Chittoor,
Andhra Pradesh
(Exparte)
Date of Institution of the suit 22/02/2020
Nature of the (Suit for pro-note,
suit for declaration and possession, Recovery of Money
suit for injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of
recording of the Evidence.
11/03/2022
Date on which the Judgment was 21/03/2022
pronounced.
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 02 00 26
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYOHALL UNIT: BENGALURU.
:JUDGMENT:
The plaintiff bank filed suit against the defendant for recovery of money.
3
Judgment OS. No.25305/2020
2. The brief facts of plaint averments is as under:under:
The power of attorney holder of plaintiff Bank is submits that the plaintiff is a pubic sector banking company headquartered in Bangalore, India and having various branches throughout India, with one of its branch at HSR Layout Branch, Bangalore. The defendant has approached the plaintiff Bank with request to grant vehicle loan of Rs.6,88,000/- for purchase of Hyuandai Xcent CRDI car by submitting loan application dated:
31/01/2017. On the request made by defendant plaintiff bank has sanctioned said loan of Rs. 6,88,000/- on 31/01/2017 by executing sanction Memorandum dated: 31/01/2017 and the defendant has executed deed of hypothication of vehicle, letter of undertaking and particulars of vehicle dated: 31/01/2017 by agreeing terms and conditions of the bank together with interest at 10.15% pa compounded. The defendant has also agreed to pay overdue interest at 2% in case of default in payment of vehicle 4 Judgment OS. No.25305/2020 loan amount. The defendant undertook to repay the said loan in 60 equated monthly installments of Rs.14,754/- commencing from 31/01/2017. But the defendant did not operate vehicle loan account satisfactorily and committed defaults in repayment of the installments. Inspite of repeated demands personal approaches made by the plaintiff, defendant failed to pay the installments and not paid the due amount along with interest. Hence plaintiff Bank through an advocate issued legal notice on 29/12/2019 to the defendant calling upon him to pay entire amount due, the said legal notice as unclaimed by the defendant, subsequent to repeated demands, personal approaches made by the plaintiff, defendant failed to pay the balance loan amount along with the interest, finally the plaintiff also sent reminder notice on 08/07/2019 and Letter of Revival on 27/12/2019 was executed by the defendant. Hence the plaintiff with no other option seized the hypothicated vehicle and sold the same for Rs. 2,00,000/- on 19/11/2019 following the procedure and the amount has been 5 Judgment OS. No.25305/2020 adjusted towards the loan. Now the defendant is liable to pay outstanding due amount of Rs.4,84,675/- with future interest.
The Bank statement of account from as on 13/02/2020 clearly states the outstanding amount.
3. The power of attorney of plaintiff Bank further submits that cause of action for this suit arose on 31/07/2017 when the defendant availed the vehicle loan and executed the suit documents, when the defendant failed to pay the loan amount as per terms of sanction and when defendant executed lette of revival dated: 27/12/2019 and recall notice and inspite of demands in Bengalore City, within the jurisdiction of this court. The cause of action is continuous one as the defendant till date has not paid the money borrowed from the plaintiff. The power of attorney holder of plaintiff Bank prays to decree the suit for recovery of loan amount directing defendants to pay sum of Rs.4,84,675=00ps together with interest at the rate of 10.85% p.a. 6 Judgment OS. No.25305/2020 from the date of filing suit till date of decree and award costs of the suit.
4. The suit summons issued to the defendant, but same was not served. The plaintiff taken steps for service of summons to defendant by way of paper publication, but same was published in the Hosadiganta News Paper dated:28/11/2021, but the defendant has not appeared placed exparte.
5. The GPA holder of plaintiff Bank examined as PW.1 and documents marked at ExP1 to ExP8. The defendant placed exparte, hence no crossexamination of PW.1. The defendant exparte, hence no evidence of defendant.
6. The plaintiff counsel argued. Perused the records.
7. The points arise for my consideration are as under: 7 Judgment OS. No.25305/2020
1. Whether plaintiff Bank made out prima facie ground to decree the suit?
2. What Order?
8. My finding on the above points are: Point No.1: In Affirmative Point No.2: See final order for following:
:REASONS:
9. Point No.1:
The GPA holder of plaintiff Bank Rachakonda Sumalatha filed her affidavit in lieu of examination in chief as PW.1 and deposed evidence that the plaintiff is a pubic sector banking company headquartered in Bangalore, India and having various branches throughout India, with one of its branch at HSR Layout Branch, Bangalore. The defendant has approached the plaintiff Bank with request to grant vehicle loan of Rs.6,88,000/ for the purchase of Hyuandai 8 Judgment OS. No.25305/2020 Xcent CRDI car by submitting loan application dated:
31/01/2017. On the request made by defendant plaintiff bank has sanctioned said loan of Rs. 6,88,000/ on 31/01/2017 by executing sanction Memorandum dated: 31/01/2017 and defendant has executed deed of hypothication of vehicle, letter of undertaking and particulars of vehicle dated: 31/01/2017 by agreeing terms and conditions of the bank together with interest at 10.15% p.a. compounded. The defendant has also agreed to pay overdue interest at 2% in case of default in payment of vehicle loan amount. The defendant undertook to repay said loan in 60 equated monthly installments of Rs.14,754/ commencing from 31/01/2017. But the defendant did not operate vehicle loan account satisfactorily and committed defaults in repayment of the installments. Inspite of repeated demands, personal approaches made by the 9 Judgment OS. No.25305/2020 plaintiff, defendant failed to pay the installments and not paid the due amount along with interest. Hence plaintiff bank through an advocate issued legal notice on 29/12/2019 to the defendant calling upon him to pay entire amount due, the said legal notice as unclaimed by the defendant, subsequent to repeated demands, personal approaches made by the plaintiff, defendant failed to pay the balance loan amount along with the interest, finally the plaintiff also sent reminder notice on 08/07/2019 and Letter of Revival on 27/12/2019 was executed by the defendant. Hence the plaintiff with no other option seized hypothicated vehicle and sold the same for Rs.2,00,000/ on 19/11/2019 following the procedure and the amount has been adjusted towards the loan. Now the defendant is liable to pay outstanding due amount of Rs.4,84,675 with future interest. The Bank statement of account from as on 10 Judgment OS. No.25305/2020 13/02/2020 clearly states the outstanding amount. The defendant was due a total sum of Rs.4,84,675=00ps as on 13/02/2020.
10. The PW.1 further deposed evidence that cause of action for this suit arose on 31/07/2017 when the defendant availed the vehicle loan and executed the suit documents, when the defendant failed to pay the loan amount as per terms of sanction and when defendant executed letter of revival dated: 27/12/2019 and recall notice and inspite of demands in Bangalore City within the jurisdiction of this court. The cause of action is continuous one as the defendant till date has not paid the money borrowed from the plaintiff Bank. The PW.1 prays to decree the suit as prayed. In support of oral evidence PW.1 marked documents ExP1 to ExP8.
11
Judgment OS. No.25305/2020
11. The ExP1 is notarized copy of power of attorney authorizing PW.1 by his higher authority for conducting the case and deposing evidence before the court. The ExP2 is loan application of defendant under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana. The ExP3 is Loan sanction memorandum to the defendant. The ExP4 is Hypothication of vehicle executed by defendant in favour of their Bank. The ExP5 is Letter of revival executed by defendant. The ExP6 is Notice given to defendant calling upon the defendant to repay the loan amount. The ExP7 is unclaimed cover of notice. The ExP8 is Loan account statement of defendant. As per ExP8 there is outstanding balance of Rs.4,84,675/ to be payable by defendant to the plaintiff.
12. The ExP2 to ExP4 discloses that those loan documents were executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff Bank agreeing to repay the loan amount in 60 installments. But 12 Judgment OS. No.25305/2020 the ExP4 loan recall notice discloses the plaintiff bank issued notices to the defendant for repayment of the loan amount. But the defendant has not paid the said amount. That suit summons were issued to the defendant, but same was unserved since the defendant left the address. The addresses mentioned in the plaint is the same address mentioned in the loan application as per ExP2 executed by the defendant. But the same was notice was not served on the defendant and finally the plaintiff bank taken steps for substitute service of summons to the defendant by way of paper publication in Hosadiganta News paper dated 28/11/2021, but inspite of that the defendant not appeared and placed exparte. The documents produced and marked by the plaintiff Bank at ExP2 to ExP8 discloses that the defendant availed loan from the plaintiff Bank, but failed to repay the said amount. Hence the plaintiff bank is entitle for 13 Judgment OS. No.25305/2020 recovery of the said loan amount from the defendant. Hence the plaintiff Bank made out prima facie ground to decree the suit. Hence I answer point No.1 in Affirmative.
13. Point No.2: In view of above discussion I proceed to pass following :ORDER:
The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs. It is ordered and decreed that the defendant is directed to pay sum of Rs.4,84,675/ together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization of entire decreetal amount to plaintiff.
In case of default by the defendant the plaintiff bank is at liberty to get the recover the 14 Judgment OS. No.25305/2020 said loan amount from the defendant in due procedure of law.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him. Then corrected online, taken printout, and corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of March 2022).
(Smt.Suvarna K. Mirji) XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE :ANNEXURE:
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
PW.1 : Rachakonda Sumalatha W/o D. Tulasidas DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
ExP1 : Power of Attorney
ExP2 : Loan Application executed by defendant
ExP3 : Loan sanction memorandum to the defendant
ExP4 : Hypothication of vehicle executed by defendant
ExP5 : Letter of revival executed by defendant
ExP6 : Notice given to defendant
15
Judgment OS. No.25305/2020
ExP7 : Unclaimed cover of notice
ExP8 : Loan account statement
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
--NIL--
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
--NIL--
XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.