Delhi District Court
Icici Bank Ltd vs Sunil on 1 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRANAV JOSHI, JSCC/ASCJ/GJ
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 2004/2022
CNR NO. DLCT030039392022
IN THE MATTER OF:-
ICICI Bank Ltd.
Through its authorised representative
Sh. Shaurya Jaiswal
Having its Registered Office at:0
Landmark, Race Course Circle,
Vadodara-3160007
Interalia having its Branch Office at:-
E-3, Jhandewalan, near Jhandewalan
Metro Station, New Delhi-110055 ..... Plaintiff
VERSUS
(1) Sunil
Sh. Dharamvir,
R/o Khasra No.837, Kadipur Aman Vihar,
Qadipur Kadipur,
Delhi-110036
M. No.- 8302469217
(2) Sheela
Sh. Dharamvir,
R/o Khasra No.837, Kadipur Aman Vihar,
Qadipur Kadipur,
Delhi-110036 ..... Defendants
Date of Institution : 17.08.2022
Date of Reserving the Order : 04.04.2024
Date of Decision : 01.05.2024
Decision : Dismissed
CS No. 2004/2022 ICICI Bank Vs. Sunil & Anr. Page No. 1 of 5
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.2,89,798/- alongwith
interest @ 9.25 % P.A.
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff
through its duly authorized representative Sh. Shaurya Jaiswal
for recovery of Rs.2,89,698/- alongwith interest @ 9.25% P.A.
Brief Facts pleaded in the plaint
2. The brief facts pleaded in the plaint are that the defendant No. 1 is the borrower and defendant No. 2 is co- borrower to the loan agreement. That defendants approached the plaintiff for grant top-up loan for business purpose under the existing facility of car Loan cum Hypothecation of Rs.2,63,759/-, which was duly sanctioned and disbursed on 07.10.2018 to be paid in 48 equated monthly installments with interest @ 9.25% subject to the terms and conditions of the documents executed by defendants in favour of the plaintiff bank. That pursuant to the said receipt of the loan, defendants failed to adhere to the financial discipline of the repayment schedule of the loan either towards principle or interest or charges thereon. That several equal monthly installment were not paid and cheque/ECS instructions were dishonoured/returned back unpaid. That persistent requests were made by the officials of plaintiff bank to the defendant for non-payment of equated monthly installments but in vain. That defendant failed to honor his commitments to repay the loan and even failed to make the vehicle (which is a security) available for inspection to the officials of the plaintiff. CS No. 2004/2022 ICICI Bank Vs. Sunil & Anr. Page No. 2 of 5 That till dated defendant has paid an amount of Rs. 24,396/- (12 EMIs) towards equated monthly installments and had defaulted for repayment of Rs. 58,933/- (07 EMIs) and late payment charges and cheque bounding charges of Rs. 12,755/- totaling to Rs. 71,688/- besides future monthly installments of Rs. 2,44,116/- (29 EMI) as on 20.05.2022. That due to default in repayment of monthly installments, plaintiff bank issued notice dated 07.02.2022 to the defendants but defendants did not pay any heed to the same. Defendants are indebted and liable to pay Rs.2,89,698/- to the plaintiff alongwith court fee. Hence, the present suit.
3. The defendants were served with the summons on 24.11.2022 but despite the service of summons, the defendants did not appear nor had they filed their written statement. Vide order dated 11.08.2023, right of the defendants to file the WS was closed and case was fixed for ex-parte PE.
Plaintiff's Evidence
4. In support of its case, plaintiff bank examined Sh. Sunil Chaudhary as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A. He relied upon the following documents:
1. Power of Attorney Ex. PW1/1 (OSR).
2. Original preliminary credit facility form Ex. PW1/2.
3. Original sanction letter with allied document Ex. PW1/3 (colly.).
4. Loan Recall notice Ex. PW1/4.
5. Postal receipts Mark X.
6. Foreclosure/pre-payment and statement of account CS No. 2004/2022 ICICI Bank Vs. Sunil & Anr. Page No. 3 of 5 Ex. PW1/5 (colly.).
7. Certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW-1/6.
8. Certificate under section 2-A of Bankers' Book Evidence Act, 1892 Ex. PW-1/7.
5. Ex-parte final arguments were advanced. Entire record is perused.
6. The plaintiff has sought the recovery of Rs. 2,89,698/- which was inclusive of the future EMIs, late payment charges, interest and cheque bouncing charges. It is stated in the plaint that the defendants have only paid an amount of Rs. 24,396/- towards the EMIs. The plaintiff has relied upon the foreclosure notice and statement of account Ex. PW-1/5 (colly.). However, perusal of the statement of account shows that the plaintiff has not shown the payments made by the defendants towards the EMIs and the dates on which such payments were made. The statement of account does not reflect the payments made by the defendants and the balance of the amount left after the credit entries towards the payment of the defendants. Therefore, there was no basis to determine the actual amount due to be paid by the defendants towards the remaining EMIs of the loan.
7. In view of the above discussion, the plaintiff has not been able to prove that defendants were liable to pay Rs. 2,89,698/- to the plaintiff.
8. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
CS No. 2004/2022 ICICI Bank Vs. Sunil & Anr. Page No. 4 of 5 Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by PRANAVAnnounced in open Court PRANAV JOSHI
Date:
on this 01st day of May, 2024 JOSHI 2024.05.01
16:04:41
+0530
(PRANAV JOSHI)
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI
CS No. 2004/2022 ICICI Bank Vs. Sunil & Anr. Page No. 5 of 5