Bangalore District Court
Canara Bank vs Sri. Pradeep (Major) on 10 March, 2022
SCCH-2 S.C.No.275/2020
KABC020054432020
Form No. (9)
Civil (R.P.91) TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENT IN SUIT
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUDGE AND ADDL.
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-2).
S.C.NO.275/2020
Present : Smt. Shainey K.M., BAL.LLB.,
VI ASCJ & ACMM., Bengaluru.
Dated this the 10th day of March, 2022
PLAINTIFF : Canara Bank,
Peenya 3rd Stage, Bangalore.
Represented by its duly constituted
GPA Holder & Attorney,
Sri. Suresh Dhaudti (Major),
S/o Late Sri. P.S. Dhaudti.
(By Sri. T. Mohan Raj, Advocate)
- Vs. -
DEFENDANT : Sri. Pradeep (Major),
Aged about 33 years,
S/o Sri. Balaji,
# 334, 7th Main,
Vijaya College Slum,
Bangalore-560 070.
(Ex-parte)
SCCH-2 S.C.No.275/2020
Date of institution of suit : 27.02.2020.
Nature of suit : Recovery of Money.
Date of commencement of : 23.02.2022.
recording evidence
Date of judgment pronounced : 10.03.2022
Total duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s
02 00 13
:JUDGMENT:
This is a suit for recovery of money of Rs.1,95,074/- with interest @ 9.66% p.a. compounded monthly plus 2% penal interest p.a., from the date of suit till realization from the defendant.
2. PLAINT AVERMENTS IN BRIEF:
2.1 The plaintiff is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition Transfer of Undertakings) Act, having its Head office at no: 112, JC road, Bangalore.
2.2 It is averred that on 19.10.2015 of defendant submitted loan application with plaintiff for sanction of loan for purchase of vehicle under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana Scheme.
Accordingly, defendant had offered the Hypothecation of the Atul Gem Cargo XL pick up 3 wheeler vehicle to be purchased as security to the proposed loan and sought for Rs 1,85,000/ as loan.
SCCH-2 S.C.No.275/2020 2.3 As per the sanction terms and conditions the defendant was sanctioned an amount of Rs 1,85,000/- and he had executed deed of Hypothecation on 21.10.2015 in favor of the plaintiff. The loan being under schematic lending, it did not attract/warrant any guarantor/joint borrower. As per sanction terms and conditions, the defendant was required to remit the EMI and the entire loan was to be repaid in 36 EMIs of Rs. 6,089/- each and the last installment of Rs. 6,151/-. The first such EMI was to commence from December 2015 onwards. Accordingly, the defendant had executed necessary standing instruction in favor of the bank in the prescribed format. It is contended that defendant had agreed to remit necessary charges, levies, commission, incidental charges etc: and had also agreed to pay interest at the rate of 10.55% per annum compounded with monthly rests on the outstanding liability in the loan account. The defendants had also agreed to pay penal rate of interest at 2 % p.a., in case of default in repayment of the EMIs.
2.4 It is contended that defendant has neither repaid the EMIs inspite of repeated demands and personal contacts made by the plaintiff bank from time to time for recovery of the dues, nor SCCH-2 S.C.No.275/2020 contacted the plaintiff bank. So, that on 6.1.2020, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice to the defendant calling him to repay the loan amount. Despite due service of legal notice, the defendant did not repay the loan and hence, this suit.
3. Suit summons was served on defendant by way of substitute service. Pursuant to suit summons defendant did not appear despite due service. Consequently, he is placed ex-parte vied order dated 11.02.2022.
4. The plaintiff in support of suit claim examined the Manager, as P.W-1. Ex.P-1 to P-11 are marked as exhibits for the plaintiff.
5. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff. Following points that arise for my consideration:
POINTS
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that on 21.10.2015, the defendant has borrowed loan of Rs.1,85,000/- from the plaintiff by executing hypothecation deed agreeing to repay the loan with in 36 monthly with interest @ 10.55 % per annum?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves default by defen- dant in repaying the loan?
SCCH-2 S.C.No.275/2020
3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for suit claim?
4) What order or decree?
6. My answers are as under.
POINT No-1 - In the Affirmative.
POINT No-2 - In the Affirmative.
POINT No-3 - In the partly Affirmative.
POINT No-4 - As per final order; for following REAS O NS
7. POINT No. 1 to 3:- To avoid repetition of facts and for sake of convenience, above points are taken up together for common discussion, as under:
8. Sri. Shashiraju. K, the Branch Manager of the Plaintiff Bank was examined as P.W.1 to prove the suit transaction. P.W.1 has filed affidavit in lieu of oral evidence and reiterated the plaint averments in evidence. He has deposed that, upon the application of defendant for vehicle loan, bank has sanctioned loan of Rs.1,85,000/- to defendant on 21.10.2015, upon execution of necessary loan documents by the defendant. The defendant had agreed to repay the loan with in 36 monthly installments from the SCCH-2 S.C.No.275/2020 date of sanction of loan with interest @ 10.55 % p.a. or at revised rate by RBI and defendant had hypothecated the vehicle. P.W-1 has also deposed with regard to execution of hypothecation deed, letter evidencing execution of document. Evidence of P.W-1 discloses that, the defendant has failed to repay the installments as per agreed terms.
9. Plaintiff bank has executed letter of authority authorizing P.W.1 to give evidence in the case on behalf of bank and said letter of authority is marked as Ex.P.1. Ex.P.2 is the I.D. Card of P.W.1 issued by the plaintiff bank. To prove the alleged loan transaction, the plaintiff has produced the application form for loan submitted by the defendant as per Ex.P.3. The plaintiff bank has sanctioned loan of Rs.1,85,000/- with interest and it is evident from perusal of sanction letter as per Ex.P.4. The defendant has executed hypothecation deed in favour of plaintiff bank of the security of vehicle loan and it is evident from perusal of Ex.P.5-Deed of hypothecation of vehicle. The defendant has executed another letter evidencing execution of documents and it is evident from SCCH-2 S.C.No.275/2020 perusal of Ex.P.6. That on 12.09.2017, the loan borrowed by the defendant was revived and it is evident from perusal of Ex.P.11, the letter of revival.
10. To prove the outstanding dues payable by the defendant, the plaintiff has produced statement of loan account for the period from 01.01.2015 to 23.01.2020 at Ex.p.10 and perusal of same discloses that, an amount of Rs.1,95,074/- is outstanding due to be paid by the defendant. Ex.P.10(a) is the certificate under Sec.2A(b) and 2A(c) of Banker's Book Evidence Act in respect of Ex.P.10. P.W.1 deposed that, after borrowing loan, the defendant has failed to repay the loan installments and therefore, plaintiff bank has issued legal notice to him on 06.01.2020 and to substantiate his contention, he has produced office copy of legal notice at Ex.P.7. Ex.P.8 is the postal receipt in respect of above notice. It is deposed that, despite service of legal notice, the defendant did not repay the loan amount with interest.
11. The oral evidence of P.W.1 is supported with documentary evidence. The positive evidence adduced by P.W.1 inspire SCCH-2 S.C.No.275/2020 confidence of the Court. The cogent and corroborative evidence adduced by the plaintiff has remained unchallenged and controverted. I have no reason to disbelieve the positive evidence adduced by plaintiff. Moreover, the defendant has remained absent and not contested the case of the plaintiff.
12. Interest:- According to the plaintiff the loan was advanced to the defendant for commercial purpose to buy vehicle. The agreed rate of interest is 10.55% per annum as per Ex.P.3-loan application and Ex.P.4-sanction letter. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled for current and future interest @ 10.5% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization. For these reasons, Hence, Point No.1 and 2 are answered in the Affirmative and Point No.3 is answered in partly affirmative.
13. POINT No.4:- For the reasons assigned supra, following order is passed:
:ORDER:
Suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part with costs. The plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,95,074/-, with current and future interest @ SCCH-2 S.C.No.275/2020 10.55% per annum, from the date of suit till the date of realization.
The defendant is hereby directed to pay the decreetal amount within 3 months from the date of order.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Directly typed by me on my official laptop, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 10th day of March, 2022) (Shainey. K.M.) VI Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXI ACMM, Bengaluru.
:: ANNEXURES ::
List of witnesses examined by the Plaintiff:-
P.W.1 -Shashi Raju K. List of documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff:-
Ex.P.1 - Letter of authority. Ex.P.2 - Certified copy of I.D. Card of P.W.1. Ex.P.3 - Loan Application Form. Ex.P.3(a) - Signature of the defendant. Ex.P.4 - Loan Sanction Letter Ex.P.4(a) - Signature of the defendant. Ex.P.5 - Deed of Hypothecation. Ex.P.5(a) - Signature of the defendant. SCCH-2 S.C.No.275/2020 Ex.P.6 - Letter Evidencing Execution of documents. Ex.P.6(a) - Signature of the defendant. Ex.P.7 - Legal Notice dated:06.01.2020. Ex.P.8 - Postal Receipt. Ex.P.9 - Postal Acknowledgment. Ex.P.10 - Statement of loan account of accused and
Certificate U/Sec.2A(b) of Bankers Book of Evidence Act.
Ex.P.11 - Letter of Revival Ex.P.11(a) - Signature of the defendant.
List of witnesses examined by the Defendant:-
- Nil -
List of documents marked on behalf of Defendant:-
- Nil -
(Shainey. K.M.) VI Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXI ACMM, Bengaluru.