Bangalore District Court
State Bank Of Mysore vs Sri.B.Venkateshlu on 1 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE CITY (CCH-6)
This the 1st day of August, 2016
Present: Smt. ROOPA NAIK,
B.Sc.,MA,LLM,PGD (HR)
th
24 Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
O.S.No.3298/2015
PLAINTIFF: State Bank of Mysore,
A banking company and an associate of the
State Bank of India under the State Bank of
India (Subsidiary Banks) Act 1959 and
having its principal place of business/Head
office at No.646, Kempegowda Road,
Bengaluru-09 represented by Sri.Umakanth
V.R. S/o V.Ramaswamy, aged about 57
years, city Case Officer, State Bank of
Mysore, Stressed Assets Resolution centre,
Kempegowda Road, Bengaluru-560 009.
(By Sri.T.P.Muthanna, Advocate)
Vs.
DEFENDANT: Sri.B.Venkateshlu
S/o B.Raamakrishnaama Naidu,
Aged about 44 years,
No.14, SBM, 1st Main, 5th cross,
D.G.Naidu Layout, KSRTC Extn.
Uttarahalli, Bengaluru- 560 001.
By Sri.V.Ananda
Date of institution of the suit: 08.04.2015
2 O.S.3298/2015
Nature of the suit: Money suit.
Date of commencement of 07.06.2016
recording of evidence:
Date on which Judgment was 01.08.2016
pronounced:
Duration: Days Months Years
23 03 01
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff bank has filed this suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,49,796/- from the defendant along with contractual rate of interest at 13.75% p.a. plus penal interest at 2% p.a. from the date of suit till repayment and for costs and such other reliefs.
2. a) Plaintiff has stated that defendant approached plaintiff bank for financial assistance of Rs.5,50,000/- for purchase of Indica Vista Car from M/s. Prerana Motors, Bangalore under SBM Car Loan Scheme. In consideration of application, plaintiff bank sanctioned loan of Rs.5,30,000/- to the defendant on 27.8.2010 for the 3 O.S.3298/2015 purpose of purchasing Indica Vista Car from Prerana Motors, Bangalore, cost of which was Rs.6,33,000/-. The loan was repayable in 60 equated monthly installment of Rs.11,600/- each and interest was to be charged at the rate of 11.25% linked to base rate.
b) The plaintiff further stated that defendant has purchased new Tata Indica Vista Car and got registered the same in his name. Plaintiff bank's lien was noted in the RC Book. Defendant has failed to repay the loan as agreed. Plaintiff has issued legal notice dated 24.2.2015 calling upon defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2,92,187.19 within seven days. Defendant has neither complied notice nor replied notice. Therefore, plaintiff bank is entitled for suit claim of Rs.2,49,796/- with interest at the rate of 13.75% p.a. and penal interest 2% with monthly rests.
3. In pursuance of suit summons, defendant has appeared through his counsel and has filed written statement.
4 O.S.3298/2015
4. Defendant in his written statement has admitted that he had taken loan of Rs.5,30,000/- from plaintiff bank, but denies that he had agreed to pay interest as claimed by plaintiff bank. He further contends that since date of loan, he has paid a sum of Rs.6,18,704/-. If he is given a chance to clear the amount in five installments and if bank leaves the interest, he would clear of the loan. He further submits that present suit is not maintainable.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues have been framed by my Predecessor in office:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,30,000/- from the plaintiff Bank on 27.08.2010 for the purpose of purchasing Indica Vista Car by executing suit documents as stated in the plaint?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that, the defendant agreed to repay the said loan amount in 60 equated monthly installments of Rs.11,600/-
along with interest at 11.25% p.a. compounded on monthly rest and also agreed to pay penal interest at 2% p.a.?
5 O.S.3298/2015
3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that, the defendant is liable to pay the suit claim of Rs.2,49,796/- to the plaintiff bank along with future interest at 13.75% plus 2% p.a. penal interest compounded on monthly rest?
4. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the suit filed by the plaintiff Bank is in time?
5. Whether the defendant proves that, the interest claimed by the plaintiff bank at 13.75% p.a. plus 2% p.a. towards penal interest is exorbitant and against to the guidelines of RBI?
6. Whether the defendant further proves that, he needs 5 installments to clear the loan provided, if the plaintiff bank waive the interest?
7. What decree or order?
6. In support of the case of the plaintiff, the City Case Officer of the plaintiff bank is examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 and closed their evidence. Defendant has not adduced oral or documentary evidence.
7. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the records.
6 O.S.3298/2015
8. My findings on the above Points are:
Issue No.1: Affirmative.
Issue No.2: Affirmative
Issue No.3: Partly Affirmative.
Issue No.4: In Affirmative.
Issue No.5: In Negative.
Issue No.6: In Negative.
Issue No.7: As per the final order
for the following;
REASONS
9. At the out set I would like to point out that defendant admits that he had taken loan of Rs.5,30,000/- on 27.8.2010 for purchase of Indica Vista Car from plaintiff bank and that some amount is due from him. He also undertakes to repay the same if installments are given.
10. Issue No.4: It is significant to note that plaintiff bank has sanctioned loan of 5,30,000/- on 27.8.2010 and defendant had paid some installments up to 1.10.2014. Thereafter he became defaulter and plaintiff bank has issued legal notice on 24.2.2015. Present suit is filed on 7 O.S.3298/2015 8.4.2015. Hence present suit is well within time. Accordingly I answer issue No.4 in 'affirmative'.
11. Issue Nos. 1,2, 5 & 6: Since all these issues are interlinked with each other and require common discussion of facts, they are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
12. The Manager of the plaintiff blank is examined as PW.1. His evidence is in consonance with pleadings of plaintiff bank. He has got marked as many as six documents. Even though defendant has filed his written statement, he has neither entered into witness box, nor has chosen to cross-examine PW.1. Thus evidence of PW.1 remains un-rebutted.
13. Ex.P.1 is loan application; Ex.P.2 is Sanctioned letter; Ex.P.3 is deed of hypothecation; Ex.P.4 is copy of B-Extract; Ex.P.5 is copy of legal notice; Ex.P.6 is postal receipt; Ex.P.7 is statement of account and Ex.P.8 is closure page. In view of evidence of PW.1 coupled with 8 O.S.3298/2015 Ex.P.1 to P.6, I have no hesitation to say that plaintiff bank has proved its case.
14. Even though defendant has contended that he is entitled for five installments and that interest claimed by bank is exorbitant, he has not put forth any material in support of his contention. He has not even cross- examined PW.1. Therefore, I am of the opinion that this story of defendant has not seen light of the day. Accordingly I answer Point Nos. 1 and 2 in 'affirmative' and point Nos.5 and 6 in 'negative'.
15. Issue No.3: As issue No.1 and 2 are answered in 'affirmative' and issue No.5 and 6 in 'negative', plaintiff bank is entitled for suit claim of Rs.2,49,796/- with future interest at 13.75% plus 2% penal interest except monthly rests. Accordingly I answer issue No.3 'partly in affirmative'.
16. Point No.7: In view of my findings on issue Nos.1 to 6, I proceed to pass the following:
9 O.S.3298/2015
ORDER The instant suit filed by the plaintiff bank against defendant is partly decreed with costs.
Plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit claim of Rs.2,49,796/- from the defendant along with future interest at the rate of 13.75% p.a. plus 2% penal interest from the date of suit till the date of realization.
The defendant is ordered to pay the suit claim of Rs.2,49,796/- to the plaintiff bank along with future interest at 13.75% p.a. plus 2% penal interest from the date of suit till the date of payment of the entire decreetal amount.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer on-line, transcribed by her and then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 1st day of August, 2016).
(ROOPA NAIK) XXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSION JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.10 O.S.3298/2015
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
P.W.1: L.Jayaprakash Reddy.
List of documents marked for the plaintiff:
Ex.P.1: Loan applicant. Ex.P.2: Sanctioned letter. Ex.P.3: Deed of hypothecation. Ex.P.4: Copy of B-Extract; Ex.P.5: Office copy of legal notice. Ex.P.6: Postal receipt. Ex.P.7: Statement of accounts. Ex.P.8: Closure page in Ex.P.7.
List of witnesses examined and documents marked for the defendants: Nil.
(ROOPA NAIK) XXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSION JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.