Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Bangalore District Court

The Oriental Bank Of Commerce vs Miss.Saranya.V.S on 14 September, 2016

  IN THE COURT OF THE XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
 SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY: (CCH.18)

    Dated this the 14th day of September, 2016.

                      Present
           SMT.K.B.GEETHA, M.A., LL.B.,
      XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
                 BANGALORE CITY.

                O.S.NO.2337/2016

PLAINTIFF:      The Oriental Bank of Commerce,
                No.1149, 26th Main,
                4th T Block, Jayanagar,
                Bangalore-560 041.
                Represented by its
                Branch Chief Manager
                Sri.Mukesh Kumar Jain, 56 years.

                (By Sri.B.B.Girish Kumar, Advocate)

                -VS-

DEFENDANTS :      1. Miss.Saranya.V.S.
                  d/o V.K.Divakaran,
                  aged about 26 years.

                  2. Sri.V.K.Divakaran,
                  s/o Karuthakochu,
                  aged about 51 years.

                  3. Smt.Omana Divakaran,
                  w/o V.K.Divakaran,
                  aged about 48 years.
                                   2              O.S.No.2337/2016



                        All are r/at Vellanguthara(H),
                        Mekkozhoor PO,
                        Pathanamathitta Dist.
                        Kerala-689 678.

                      (D.1 to D.3 - Exparte)


Date of Institution of the suit        : 21/3/2016

Nature of the Suit                    : Recovery of money

Date of commencement of recording
of evidence                                 : 3/8/2016

Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced                                  : 14/9/2016


                        Year/s        Month/s     Day/s

Total Duration    :       00           05           23



                       JUDGMENT

The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs.3,92,980/- with interest at 15.75% p.a. compounded monthly from the date of suit till the date of realization; for court costs and for such other reliefs.

3 O.S.No.2337/2016

2) The case of plaintiff in nutshell is that the defendants approached plaintiff bank for educational loan of Rs.3,25,000/- for the education of defendant No.1 i.e., studies in B.Sc.-Nursing Course offered by Ranebennur College of Nursing, Bangalore. Considering the application of defendants, educational loan of Rs.3,25,000/- was sanctioned as per sanction order dtd:11/6/2008. The loan application was dated 8/1/2008. Loan amount of Rs.1,73,000/- was disbursed to 1st defendant. He has executed an affidavit declaring particulars of his parents. Pursuant to the sanction of loan, defendants have executed agreement of term loan for education on 11/6/2008 wherein defendant Nos.1 to 3 have agreed to repay the loan of Rs.3,25,000/- in 60 monthly installments of Rs.9,315/- each with interest at 2% below PLR i.e., at 11.25% p.a. on monthly compounding rests and the installment would commence one year after the course period or 6 months after 1st defendant getting the job whichever is earlier. Thus, installment started from 30/4/2013 and rate of interest 4 O.S.No.2337/2016 shall be subject to change in prime lending rate/internal policy of the bank as per the direction of RBI. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 have also executed common agreement dtd:11/6/2008. Defendants have failed to make repayment after the expiry of moratorium period and violated the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. On 20/4/2013 plaintiff had written letter to defendants for rephasement of account, EMI would commence from 30/4/2013 and also issued demand letter dtd:19/6/2013 to defendants calling upon them to pay the outstanding education loan. Inspite of repeated requests and demands made by plaintiff, defendants have not paid the outstanding amount and they became defaulter and thus, the account of defendant No.1 is classified as NPA w.e.f. 30/9/2013. Ultimately, plaintiff has issued demand notice on 9/3/2016 calling upon defendants to pay the outstanding loan amount. It was served upon defendants, but they have not repaid the amount. Hence, the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5 O.S.No.2337/2016

3) Even after service of suit summons to defendants through RPAD, defendants failed to appear and contest the suit and thereby, they were placed exparte.

4) On behalf of Plaintiff Bank, the Branch Chief Manager of plaintiff bank is examined as P.W.1, got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 and closed their side.

5) Heard arguments of plaintiff's counsel.

6) From the above facts, the points that arise for consideration are:-

1) Whether the plaintiff bank proves that defendants have obtained education loan for the education of defendant No.1 by executing Term Loan Agreement for Education of defendant No.1 on 11/6/2008 agreeing to repay the same in 60 monthly installments of Rs.9,315/- each with interest at 11.25% p.a. compounded with monthly rests and installments would commence from one year after completion of the course or 6 months after 1st defendant gets the job, whichever is earlier?
2) Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for suit claim amount?
3) What order or decree?
6 O.S.No.2337/2016
7) My findings to the above points are:-
Point No.1: - In Affirmative;
Point No.2: - Partly in Affirmative; Point No.3: - As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
8) Point No.1 :- The case of plaintiff-bank is that defendants have obtained education loan for the education of defendant No.1 by executing Term Loan Agreement for Education on 11/6/2008 agreeing to repay the same in 60 monthly installments of Rs.9,315/- each with interest at 11.25% p.a. compounded with monthly rests and installment would commence from one year after completion of the course or 6 months after 1st defendant gets the job, whichever is earlier. Inspite of repeated requests and demand made by plaintiff, defendants committed default and failed to pay the installments regularly.

9) To substantiate the above contention of plaintiff bank, plaintiff bank has produced the loan application given by defendants as per Ex.P.1. They have produced the loan 7 O.S.No.2337/2016 sanction letter as per Ex.P.2, agreement of term loan for education executed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 as per Ex.P.4, the affidavit sworn by defendant No.1 regarding his family particulars as per Ex.P.3 and common agreement as per Ex.P.5. These documents reveal that defendants have given loan application to plaintiff bank for grant of loan for the education of defendant No.1. On 11/06/2008, plaintiff bank has sanctioned loan and the course period of 1st defendant was 4-½ years. Defendants agreed to repay the loan in 60 monthly installments of Rs.9,315/- commencing from one year after completion of the course or 6 months after getting the job by defendant No.1 whichever is earlier. They also agreed to pay interest at 11.25% p.a. which would vary as per RBI guidelines. Defendants were jointly and severally liable to pay the loan amount as per the loan agreement executed by them. Hence, plaintiff bank has proved point No.1. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in affirmative.

10) Point No.2:- Plaintiff bank has produced the account extract with certificate as per Bankers' Books Evidence Act as 8 O.S.No.2337/2016 per Ex.P.6 & Ex.P.7. They reveal that the amount due from defendants as on 18/3/2016 is Rs.3,92,980/-.

11) According to these documents, the course period of 1st defendant was 4-½ years. There was no intimation from defendants to plaintiff that when 1st defendant get the job. Hence, one year after the course period, the installment would begin. Hence, the suit filed by plaintiff is well within limitation.

12) The loan obtained by defendants is only for education of 1st defendant and not for commercial purpose. Hence, plaintiff is entitled for current and future interest at 10% p.a. and not 15.75% from the date of suit till the date of realization as claimed by plaintiff. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in affirmative.

13) Point No.3:- Defendant No.1 to 3 have jointly obtained the loan for the purpose of education of defendant No.1. Hence, defendant No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the suit claim.

9 O.S.No.2337/2016

14) For the above reasons and in view of findings on point Nos.1 & 2, this court proceeds to pass the following:-

ORDER The suit is decreed with costs against defendants. The defendants are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,92,980/- to the plaintiff bank with current and future interest at 10% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization.
The defendant Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the decretal amount.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by me in computer and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14th day of September, 2016).
(K.B.GEETHA) XIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
P.W.1 - Mukesh Jain
(b) Defendants' side : N I L 10 O.S.No.2337/2016 II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
        Ex.P.1               Loan application
        Ex.P.2               Loan sanction letter with terms
                             and conditions
        Ex.P.3               Affidavit sworn by defendant
                             No.2
        Ex.P.4               Term Loan agreement
                             dtd:11/6/2008
        Ex.P.5               Common agreement executed
                             by defendant Nos.1 to 3
                             dtd:11/6/2008
        Ex.P.6               Loan account extract of
                             defendants
        Ex.P.7               Certificate under Bankers'
                             Books of Evidence Act
        Ex.P.8               Office copy of demand notice
                             dtd:9/3/2016
        Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.11    3 postal acknowledgments


        (b) Defendants' side :          - Nil -




XIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.

GVU/-

11 O.S.No.2337/2016

14/9/2016 Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate detailed judgment with the following operative portion:-

ORDER The suit is decreed with costs against defendants.
                 The    defendants       are    hereby
            directed    to     pay   a         sum   of
Rs.3,92,980/- to the plaintiff bank with current and future interest at 10% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization.
The defendant Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the decretal amount.
(K.B.GEETHA) XIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.