Delhi District Court
Hdfc Bank Limited vs Raj Kumar on 9 March, 2016
HDFC Bank Ltd. V. Raj Kumar
IN THE COURT OF MS. MAHIMA RAI : CIVIL JUDGE 02
(CENTRAL),TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Suit No. 64/13
Unique ID No. 02401C027282013
HDFC Bank Limited
Having Branch Office at:
Expresss Building, 2nd Floor,
Bahadur Shah Jaffar Marg,
ITO, Delhi110002. .......... Plaintiff
VERSUS
Raj Kumar
383 D Pocket J&K
Dilshad Garden
NR Govt. School
Delhi1100095. .........Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 2,32,099/ (Rupees Two Lakh Thirty
Two Thousand Ninety Nine Only).
Date of institution : 31.05.2013
Date for reserving for orders: 23.02.2016
Date of decision : 09.03.2016
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. 2,32,099/ along with interest @ 19.6% p. a. from 26.03.2013 till realization.
Page 1 of 62. 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 scheduled commercial bank within the meaning of term defined under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, incorporated under relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai 400013 and interalia a branch office at Expresss building, 2nd Floor, Bahadur Shah Jaffar Marg, ITO, Delhi 110002.
b. It is averred that the defendant made a representation for availing a loan against vehicle bearing registration number DL4CAF0498, Chasis number MAJAXXMRTA5UA3585, engine number 5UA3585 under the product name of car n cash and plaintiff bank believing the representation to be true and relying upon the same sanctioned and consequent to execution of agreement bearing reference No. 3006888 disbursed a loan of Rupees 1,52,000/ (Rupees Four Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Only). The defendant undertook to repay the said loan in monthly installments of Rs.4550/ (Rupees Four Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Only) and to secure repayment of loan hypothecated subject property aforementioned in favour of the plaintiff bank.
c. It is also averred that the defendant undertook to comply with the terms of subject agreement which is in the form of standard form contract containing provisions signifying trade usage and practice prevalent Page 2 of 6 HDFC Bank Ltd. V. Raj Kumar in the said field of trade/commerce, with concurrence of regulators in the field.
d. In terms of the subject agreement, non payment of installment or any amount payable there under, or parting with the possession of secured asset will constitute event of default, entitling plaintiff to take possession of the secured asset without intervention of any court or tribunal, sell that off and appropriate sale proceeds towards satisfaction of outstanding dues.
e. It is stated that after availing the loan facility and enjoying the possession of subject property, the defendant has failed to adhere to financial discipline and committed willful default.
f. It is stated that despite request, followup and service of notice of demand, defendant has failed to adhere to terms of the subject agreement and further neglected to pay heed to the request of plaintiff's officers and representatives to regularize the subject account and thereby constrained plaintiff bank to terminate subject agreement, recall the facility and called upon defendant to pay the foreclosure value of subject account as on Rs. 2,32,099/ (Rupees Two Lacs Thirty Two Thousand and Ninety Nine Only) within seven days of notice vide termination/loan recall notice dated 26.03.2013.
g. Further that as per the statement of account plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.2,32,099/ (Rupees Two Lacs Thirty Two Thousand and Ninety Nine Only) from defendant as on dated 26.03.2013.
Page 3 of 63. The defendant was duly served with summons for settlement of issues by way of substituted service U/o 5 Rule 20 CPC on 04.01.2014 but, the defendants failed to appear and contest the suit of the plaintiff consequently and the defendant was proceeded exparte by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 29.05.2014.
4. In its exparte evidence, the plaintiff has examined its A.R. Sh. Sudhir Yadav as PW1. PW1 has placed reliance on Board of Resolution dated 23.04.2015 in his favour which was exhibited as Ex. PW1/1. PW1 has further placed reliance on Ex. PW1/2 i. e. the Loan Application Form, Ex. PW1/3 is Loan Agreement dated 30.03.207, Ex. PW1/4 is the Demand Promissory Note dated 30.03.2007, Ex.PW1/5 is the Loan Recall Notice dated 26.03.2013, Ex.PW1/6 is the postal receipt, Ex.PW1/7 is the Forclosure Statement of the loan account and Ex.PW1/8 is the Statement of the Loan Account.
5. Exparte final arguments was addressed by Ld. counsel for the plaintiff.
6. I have gone through the material available on record and heard the arguments on behalf of the plaintiff.
7. It is evident from the record that the defendant made a representation for availing a loan against the vehicle bearing Regn. No. DL4CAF 0498, Chasis No. MAJAXXMRTA5UA3585, Engine No. 5UA3585 Page 4 of 6 HDFC Bank Ltd. V. Raj Kumar under the produce name of Used Car Loan vide Ex. PW1/2 i. e. the Loan Application Form and plaintiff bank believing the representation to be true and relying upon the same sanctioned and consequent to execution of agreement bearing Reference No. 3006888 disbursed a loan of Rs. 1,52,000/ to the defendant. The original Loan application dated 31.03.2007 and Loan Agreement dated 30.03.207 are exhibited as Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3 respectively. The defendant also executed a Demand Promissory Note dated 30.03.2007 in favour of the plaintiff bank in furtherance of the Loan availed from the plaintiff bank. The original copy of the Demand Promissory Note dated 30.03.2007 is Ex.PW1/4. Further, Ex.PW1/5 is the notice of demand dated 26.03.2013 and the Ex.PW1/6 is the postal receipt. Ex.PW1/7 is the certified computer generated copy of Forclosure of Account and Ex.PW1/8 is the certified copy of Statement of the Loan Account.
8. In these facts and circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that the testimony of PW1 remained unrebutted and unchallenged through out and accordingly the plaintiff bank is entitled for money decree. However, the rate of interest as sought by the plaintiff bank @ 19.06% p.a. is exorbitant and not in consonance with the guilt. Hence, accordingly, the rate of interest @ 10% p.a. is granted on the decreetal amount with pendentelite and future interest. Further, as the hypothecated vehicle bearing Regn. No. DL4CAF 0498, Chasis No. MAJAXXMRTA5UA3585, Engine No. 5UA3585 has not been repossessed by the plaintiff bank, the plaintiff bank is allowed to repossess the same and make auction of the Page 5 of 6 HDFC Bank Ltd. V. Raj Kumar same in the open market and after getting the sale proceeds to adjust the same in the decreetal amount.
9. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed for the decreetal amount of Rs. 2,32,099/ along with pendentelite and future interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of the institution of the suit till the date of the decree.
10. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court today i. e. on 09.03.2016.
( Mahima Rai ) Civil Judge02 (Central) Delhi.
Page 6 of 6HDFC Bank Ltd. V. Raj Kumar Page 7 of 6