Bangalore District Court
Canara Bank vs Mrs. Jayanthi on 6 April, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU (SCCH-22)
PRESENT : SMT. SHAKUNTHALA.S
B.A., LL.B.,
XX Additional Small Causes Judge,
& Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
DATED : This the 6th Day of April, 2021.
S.C.No.408/2020
PLAINTIFF - Canara Bank,
Hennur Branch,
Hennur Main Road,
Bangalore-560043.
Represented by its Branch Manager
Sri. Srinivasalu Vadeala,
Aged about 34 Years.
Son of Sri. Pattabhiramaiah.
(Rep. By Sri. M.S.Vinayak, Adv.,)
- Versus -
DEFENDANT - 1. Mrs. Jayanthi,
Wife of Late Peter Ranganatha.S,
Aged by major.
2. Mr. P. Terry
Son of Late Peter Ranganathan.S
Aged by major.
3. Mr. P. John Vinod Kumar,
Son of Late Peter Ranganathan.S
SCCH-22 2 S.C.408/2020
Aged by major.
All are at
#6, Khata No.37/2,
Govindappa Road,
R.S.Palya, Kammanahalli Main Road,
M.S.Nagar Post,
Bangalore-560033.
(Ex-parte)
1. Date of Institution : 20.03.2020
2. Nature of Suit : Recovery of Money.
3. Date of commencement of
Recording Evidence : 05.03.2021
4. Date of Judgment : 06.04.2021
5. Total Duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s
01 00 18
:: JUDGMENT ::
This is the suit filed by plaintiff Bank against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,17,938/- jointly and severally together with current and future interest at the rate of 10.35% p.a compounded monthly and 2% penal interest from the date of suit till the date of realization of the suit claim.
2. The brief case of the plaintiff bank is as under:
According to plaintiff one Peter Ranganathan husband of the SCCH-22 3 S.C.408/2020 1st defendant and father of defendant no.2 and 3 availed vehicle loan of Rs. 1,43,000/- after executing all necessary loan documents and also hypothicated the vehicle by executing Hypothication deed.
3. He agreed to repay the loan with terms and conditions mentioned therein and agreed to repay the loan in 60 monthly installments with interest at 11.45% p.a compounded monthly and agreed to pay the penal interest at 2% p.a in case of default in payment of the loan.
4. That as agreed he failed to pay the installment and became defaulter. In spite of personal approaches he failed to repay and he died on 18.08.2016 leaving behind the defendants as his surviving legal heirs and also by leaving the assets and liabilities.
5. Defendants being legal heirs of deceased Peter Ranganathan, hence they are liable to pay loan with present and future interest and penal interest. The defendants being legal heirs of deceased Peter Ranganathan have executed revival letter on 05.12.2017 confirming the availment of loan as well as execution of loan documents by the deceased. In spite of it they have failed to clear the loan liability. Legal notice issued to them on 15.02.2020 SCCH-22 4 S.C.408/2020 calling upon them to repay the loan liability but in spite of notice they failed to clear the loan. Hence got filed this suit for the aforesaid reliefs.
6. In response to the summons, though served on the defendant not chosen to appear before the court and placed Ex- parte.
7. Plaintiff in order to prove its case, Manager of the plaintiff bank Srinivasalu Vadeala got examined himself as P.W.1 and in support of oral evidence got marked 16 documents, at Ex.P1 to Ex.P16.
8. The oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff remained unchallenged and un controverted.
9. Heard the arguments.
10. On perusal of oral as well as documentary evidence , the points that arise for my determination are;
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,43,000/- vehicle loan by executing all loan documents and also by hypothicating the vehicle?
2. Whether the plaintiff entitle for the interest SCCH-22 5 S.C.408/2020 and penal interest? If so, at what rate?
3. Whether the plaintiff entitle for the relief as sought for?
4. What order or decree?
11. My findings on the above points are as under;
Point No.1 - In the Affirmative Point No.2 - Partly in the Affirmative.
Point No.3 - In the Affirmative Point No.4 - As per final order for the following reasons.
:: REASONS ::
POINT No.1 and 3:-
12. In order to prove the case of plaintiff, Manager of the plaintiff bank examined himself as PW.1 and he has reiterated in his affidavit filed in lieu of his examination-in-chief and he contended that husband of first defendant and father of defendant no.2 and 3 deceased Peter Ranganathan approached the plaintiff Bank and availed vehicle loan of Rs.1,43,000/- by executing hypothication deed and all other necessary loan documents and he agreed to repay the same in 60 monthly installments with interest at 11.45% p.a compounded monthly and 2% penal interest in case of SCCH-22 6 S.C.408/2020 default and he died leaving behind the defendants as his Lrs and also assets and liability.
13. Defendants being legal heirs of deceased executed revival letter and agreeing for the terms of the loan and the documents executed by the deceased. Defendants also failed to repay the loan and they also became defaulters. In spite of issuance of notice and service a the same they neither repaid the loan nor replied to the notice thereby they have became defaulters.
14. In order to prove the availment of loan by deceased Peter Ranganathan PW.1 got produced Ex.P1 loan application which clearly establishes the approach made by deceased for availment of loan and as per Ex.P2 the sanctioned letter on which the plaintiff bank sanctioned the loan with the terms and conditions mentioned in the said agreement. Ex.P3 is the specimen card wherein the signature of deceased finds a place.
15. Ex.P4 is the hypothication deed under which the deceased hypothicated the vehicle that is auto rickshaw and he agreed to repay the loan in 60 monthly installments with interest at 11.45% as per page-2 serial no.3 and the signature of deceased also SCCH-22 7 S.C.408/2020 finds a place in Ex.P4.
16. Ex.P5 is the letter of under taking wherein the deceased under taken to repay the loan amount and Ex.P6 is the particulars of hypothicated the vehicle. Ex.P7 is the death certificate of Peter Ranganathan and Ex.P8 B register extract in respect of auto ricksha which he hypothicated to the plaintiff bank and Ex.P9 is the registration certificate of the vehicle in his name. Ex.P10 is the revival letter dated 05.12.2017 wherein the defendants have revived the loan raised by their deceased father and also Ex.P11 is the letter of revival. Ex.P12 the notice, Ex.P13 to 15 returned postal cover Ex.P16 is the statement of account of deceased Peter Ranganathan.C wherein it clearly discloses that on 17.12.2014 a sum of Rs.1,43,000/- has been debited towards the loan disbursement in his favour. Ex.P16 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 which clearly clinches the matter at issue and also Ex.P10 and 11 establishes that the defendants having revived the loan and failed to repay the loan and became defaulters. Moreover the oral as well as the documentary evidence produced by plaintiff remained unchallenged and unrebutted, accordingly in the existence of Ex.P1 SCCH-22 8 S.C.408/2020 to Ex.P16 plaintiff establishes the approach of deceased Peter Ranganathan for availment of vehicle loan as well as execution of necessary documents. Hence, I answer Point No.1 and 3 in the affirmative.
17. Point No.2:
It is the contention of plaintiff that deceased Peter Ranganathan agreed to repay the loan with interest at 11.45% p.a compounded monthly interest and also 2% penal interest in case of defaulter. In order corroborate the same plaintiff got produced Ex.P4 wherein at page-2 serial no.3 which clearly establish that the borrower agreed to pay interest at 11.45% above on going base rate. So also in Ex.P1 rate of interest mentioned at 11.45% and also in Ex.P2 the sanctioned letter. In the existence of Ex.P1 and 4 agreed rate of interest at 11.45% which will be changed from time to time as per the guidelines of RBI accordingly plaintiff now sought for repayment of loan amount with interest at 10.35% p.a. Even though plaintiff claiming penal interest at 2% but nothing has been proved in respect of the penal interest accordingly he is not entitled to recover penal interest at 2% moreover Under Sec. 34 SCCH-22 9 S.C.408/2020 CPC given discretion to the court and at this stage, it is relevant to mention Sec.34, which reads, thus;
(1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent, per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit :
Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent, per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions."
18. Accordingly in the existence of agreed rate of interest if the defendant is directed to pay interest at the rate of 10% p.a no in justice or hardship, would be caused accordingly considering the SCCH-22 10 S.C.408/2020 nature of loan, I answered this point partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative.
19. POINT NO.3: Plaintiff who approached this court for the relief and to obtain the said relief he got produced oral as well as documentary evidence which is satisfactory cogent, convincing, hence I have no reason to disbelieve the case of plaintiff moreover the case of plaintiff remained unchallenged and hence is entitled for the relief as sought for accordingly, I answer this point partly in the affirmative.
20. Point No.4: For the above reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed with costs.
Defendants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,17,938/ together with interest at 10% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realization of the same.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open SCCH-22 11 S.C.408/2020 court on this the 6th day of April, 2021) (SHAKUNTHALA.S.) XX A.S.C.J. & A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
:: ANNEXURE ::
Witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff:
P.W.1 - Sri. Srinivasalu Vadeala `
Documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 - Original Loan Application.
Ex.P.2 - Loan Sanction letter
Ex.P.3 - Original Specimen signature card
Ex.P.4 - Original Deed of Hypothecation
Ex.P.5 - Original letter of Undertaking
Ex.P.6 - Original particulars of Hyphenation vehicle
Ex.P.7 - Original certificate of death of Peter
Ranganathan
Ex.P.8 - Copy of B Extract
Ex.P.9 - Copy of Certificate of Registration
Ex.P.10 - Original Letter of revival
Ex.P.11 - Original Letter of revival
Ex.P.12 - Office copy of recall notice
Ex.P.13 to 15- Three returned postal cover
Ex.P.16 - Statement of account
Witnesses examined on behalf of the defendant:
- Nil -
Documents marked on behalf of the defendant:
- Nil -
(SHAKUNTHALA.S.) XX A.S.C.J. & A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.