Delhi District Court
Punjab National Bank vs M/S. Jaggi Auto Service Centre on 31 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH R.L. MEENA ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE02:
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS:NEW DELHI
CS No. 295/12/14
Unique Identification No. 02405C0187362012
Punjab National Bank
A body corporate constituted under
the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of
Undertakings) Act, 1970,
Having its Head Office At 7,
Bhkaji Cama Place, New Delhi
And Interalia of its branch office
At Sector22, Dwarka, New Delhi
Through Shri B.S.Bisht, Manager,
Duly Constituted Attorney ........Plaintiff
(Through Sh. Gautam Singh, Advocate)
VERSUS
1.M/s. Jaggi Auto Service Centre Through its proprietor Sh. Pradeep Kumar Sharma At: RZG281, Bhagat Singh Marg, Raj NagarII, Palam Colony, CS No. 295/12/14 PNB Vs M/s Jaggi Auto Service Centre page no. 1/8 New Delhi110045.
2. Sh. Pradeep Kumar Sharma R/o RZH796, Gali no.3, Chhotu Ram Colony, Raj NagarII, Palam Colony, New Delhi110045. ........ Defendants Date of institution of the suit : 28.08.2012 Date of arguments : 31.03.2015 Date of pronouncement : 31.03.2015 31.03.2015 EXPARTE JUDGMENT Suit For Recovery of Rs 3,86,960/ (Rupees Three Lacs Eighty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Only)
1. Plaintiff has instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,86,960/ against the defendant alongwith costs, pendentalite & future interest @ 15.50% p.a.
2. Summons for settlement were issued to the defendants and same were served upon them. Both defendants filed their written statement. During the pendency of suit, defendant CS No. 295/12/14 PNB Vs M/s Jaggi Auto Service Centre page no. 2/8 did not appear before the court despite service of summons, therefore, they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 04.12.2014.
3. Brief facts of the case are that defendant no.2 is the proprietor of M/s Jaggi Auto Service Center,(defendant no.1) which is engaged in the business of running Auto, Garage . It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant no.2 approached plaintiff bank for grant of credit facility i.e cash credit/overdraft facility under credit Guarantee Trust from Small and Medium Enterprises Scheme and filed an application on 01.08.2010 for the business of auto garage. Accordingly, credit facility i.e cash credit/overdraft facility was granted in the form of cash credit for Rs. 4,00,000/ on the interest at the rate of 11.75% vide sanction letter dated 06.08.2010 which was duly availed by defendant no.1 through defendant no.2 through account no. 4913008700000464. It is the further case of the plaintiff that for securing the repayment of the credit facility granted CS No. 295/12/14 PNB Vs M/s Jaggi Auto Service Centre page no. 3/8 in favour of the defendant no.1 through defendant no.2 with interest, cost and other charges such as increased interest, service charges, insurance charges etc the following documents were executed:
(a) Agreement for Loan/Cash credit/overdraft dated 07.09.2010 along with standard interest clause in the loan agreement.
(b) Hypothication of goods and book debts to secure cash credit facility dated 07.05.2010.
(c) Balance and security confirmation letter on 14.09.2011.
4. It is further case of the plaintiff that defendant has availed the said credit facility but failed to adhere the financial discipline and the defendants have been committing default in the repayment of the amount under the aforesaid credit facility. It is further stated that defendants failed to route the sale proceeds through the account and they have also not submitted their statement of account or other financial documents as required by the bank as per terms and CS No. 295/12/14 PNB Vs M/s Jaggi Auto Service Centre page no. 4/8 conditions of the sanction. Vigorous efforts on the part of the plaintiff to realize the payment have failed to yield any worthwhile recovery. It is further stated that account of the defendant became highly irregular and as per the norms, rules and regulations of the banking business the account has been classified in N.P.A on 30.09.2011.
5. It is further case of the plaintiff that demand notices were sent to the defendants on 11.10.2011, 27.01.2012, 10.03.2012 and 09.06.2012 but defendant failed to pay the loan amount.
6. Defendants filed written statement. Defendant no.2 Pardeep Kumar Sharma is stated to be proprietor of M/s Jaggi Auto Service Center, defendant no.1. In the written statement it is stated that the representatives of the plaintiff had approached the defendant no.2 and allured him to avail the overdraft facility stating that the said facility is on very less rate of interest as per the guidelines of the Government to encourage the self employment but the plaintiff had charged the interest at very high rate in the contrary to their CS No. 295/12/14 PNB Vs M/s Jaggi Auto Service Centre page no. 5/8 commitments and tried to cheat him. It is further contented that the officials of the plaintiff bank has fabricated and manipulated the blank printed formats in order to file the instant suit against him. It is further contented that by the bare perusal of the said alleged documents, it is very much evident that those documents were got signed from him by the plaintiff bank with a malafide intention to manipulate and misuse the same in future for the purpose to extort the money from him for which the plaintiff bank is not legally entitled to do so. It is further contented by the defendant that no amount is now payable by him to the plaintiff as he has already repaid the same to the plaintiff and the same is also well reflected even in the statement of account filed by the plaintiff itself. It is prayed that present suit is liable to be dismissed.
7. Plaintiff bank, in order to prove its case, has examined Smt. Veena Rani Manager as (PW1), who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit of evidence Ex PW 1/A. In the exparte CS No. 295/12/14 PNB Vs M/s Jaggi Auto Service Centre page no. 6/8 evidence, she has reiterated all the material facts of the plaint which are not reproduced here for sake of brevity. She has also proved the following documents:
(a) Copy of GPA Ex PW1/1 (OSR).
(b) Application form dated 01.08.2010 Ex PW 1/2.
(c) Sanction letter Ex PW 1/3.
(d) Agreement for loan/cash credit/overdraft along with consent clause Ex PW1/4.
(e) Hypothication of goods and book debits to secure cash credit facility Ex PW1/5.
(f) Balance and security confirmation letter Ex PW1/6.
(g) Legal notice dated 09.06.2012 along with postal receipts Ex PW1/7 colly.
(h) Statement of account Ex PW1/8.
8. It is prayed by the plaintiff that decree of Rs 3,86,960/ be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant no.1 & 2 alongwith costs, pendentalite and future interest @ 15.50% p.a with monthly rests as agreed from the date of filing till CS No. 295/12/14 PNB Vs M/s Jaggi Auto Service Centre page no. 7/8 its realization.
9. I have heard exparte final arguments and given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by counsel for plaintiff and perused the record carefully.
10.The entire evidence of plaintiff remains unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the exparte evidence of plaintiff. The suit of plaintiff against the both defendants is thus decreed for the recovery of amount of Rs 3,86,960/. As far as pendentalite and future interest @ 15.50% p.a with monthly rests is concerned, I am of the considered view that same is exorbitant. However, in the interest of justice, plaintiff is awarded pendentalite and future interest @10% per annum from the filing of the suit till the date of realization of the suit amount alongwith cost of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in the (R.L.Meena)
open court on 31.03.2015 Addl. District Judge02/SouthWest,
Dwarka Courts Complex, New Delhi
CS No. 295/12/14 PNB Vs M/s Jaggi Auto Service Centre page no. 8/8