Delhi District Court
M/S Icici Bank Ltd vs Tek Chand on 26 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARVEEN SINGH, ADMINISTRATIVE
CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH WEST), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
.
Suit No. : 51/08
M/s ICICI Bank Ltd.
Having Registered Office at:
''Landmark'', Race Course Circle,
Vadodara390007.
Having Branch Office at:
S.D. Tower, Sector8, Rohini,
New Delhi. ...Plaintiff.
Versus
Tek Chand,
S/o Sh. Randheer,
R/o ILCON Tracher & Vikas Traders,
H301, Ground Floor, Mangol Puri,
Delhi. ...Defendant.
Date of Institution : 17.11.2008.
Date of Arguments : 26.03.2012.
Date of Judgment : 26.03.2012.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.2,56,685.19p
Suit No. 51/08 No. 1 of 4
JUDGMENT:
1. The present suit for recovery of Rs.2,56,685.19 has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiff is a bank and is a body corporate incorporated and registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is further submitted that the defendant approached the plaintiff bank for grant of loan of Rs.2,35,450/ against the security of a vehicle namely Indica DLE. The defendant had entered into Credit Facility Application alongwith terms and conditions for said facility, deed of hypothecation and irrevocable power of attorney with the plaintiff bank. It is further submitted that the request of the defendant was duly considered and, a loan of Rs.2,35,450/ was sanctioned and disbursed to the defendant by the plaintiff bank. The defendant agreed to repay the said loan alongwith interest in 48 equated monthly installments of Rs.6,613/ each. The defendant executed a credit facility application form dated 03.12.2006 in favour of the plaintiff bank, deed of hypothecation, irrevocable power of attorney. The vehicle of the defendant registered with the registration authority with registration no. DL3CW7791 was hypothecated in favour of the plaintiff bank in terms of loan documents. It is further submitted that after availing the said loan from the plaintiff bank, the defendant failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement regarding repayment of amount either towards principal or towards the interest or charges thereon. It is further submitted that Suit No. 51/08 No. 2 of 4 several ESC instructions issued by the defendant for repayment of loan were dishonoured or returned unpaid. Several reminders were issued to the defendant to pay the outstanding loan amount but to no avail. The plaintiff company finally issued a demand notice dated 11.09.2008 calling upon the defendant to repay the entire outstanding amount and to hand over the peaceful possession of the vehicle which is hypothecated to the bank under the agreement. However, despite the receipt of the notice, the defendant failed to comply with the notice. It is further submitted that as per the account maintained by the plaintiff, the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,56,685.19 towards principal, interest and other charges. Hence, the present suit.
3. Summons for settlement of issues were issued to the defendant and the same were served upon the defendant by way of affixation. However, when the defendant failed to appear, he was proceeded exparte by my learned predecessor vide order dated 17.03.2010. Thereafter, the plaintiff led its exparte evidence and examined Sh. Arun Chaudhyar, attorney of the plaintiff bank as PW1.
4. PW1 Sh. Arun Chaudhary, attorney of the plaintiff bank deposed on the lines of the plaint and proved the application form for loan as Ex.PW1/2, loan agreement as Ex.PW1/3, copy of notice Ex.PW1/4, postal receipt as Ex.PW1/5 and the statement of account as Ex.PW1/6.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record Suit No. 51/08 No. 3 of 4 very carefully.
6. As the testimony of PW1 has been entirely unrebutted and unchallenged, I have no reasons to disbelieve the same. In view of the above, the plaintiff has become entitled for a decree. As regards the interest, there is a clause that in case of defaults, the rate of interest would be 24% per annum. However, the same is an exaggerated rate of interest and is a penalty clause and the penalties cannot be enforced under Indian Contract Act. However, considering that the defendant has defaulted in making the payment to the plaintiff, I am of the opinion that it will be equitable if interest @ 11% per annum is granted to the plaintiff. Thus, a decree of Rs.2,56,685.19p alongwith interest @ 11% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization, is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court (PARVEEN SINGH)
on 26.03.2012. ACJCUMARC NORTHWEST
(This judgment contains four pages and ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
each page bears my signature.)
Suit No. 51/08 No. 4 of 4