Bangalore District Court
The South Indian Bank Ltd vs Mrs. Sowmya on 1 October, 2021
KABC010215392020
IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-63) BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 1 st day of October, 2021
:PRESENT:
Sri R. ONKARAPPA, B.Sc., LL.B.
LXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH63)
Bengaluru city.
O.S.NO: 6081/2020
PLAINTIFF : The South Indian Bank Ltd.,
A Banking company having its
registered office at SIB House,
T. B. Road, Thrissur - 680 001, Kerala
and a Brnach office at No. 1084,
12th Main, Indiranagar, HAL 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru-560 008- Karnataka
Represented by its Principal officer and
Branch Manager Mr. Sachin Joseph
(By Narayana Shenoy, Advocate)
/Vs/
DEFENDANT : Mrs. Sowmya,
W/o Dinil Kumar,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at No. 3263, Opp Gurubhavana
B.H. Road, Paramanna Layout,
Nelamangala Bengaluru-562123
Also At,
2 O.S.NO: 6081/2020
Mrs. Soumya,
W/o Dinil Kumar,
Aged about 35 years,
having address at Ponnath House,
Chembuthara, Pananchery, Pattikkad
T.C., Thrissur, Kerala-680652
(Exparte)
Date of institution of the : 02.12.2020
suit
Nature of the suit : Money Suit
Date of commencement of : 08.09.2021
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 01.10.2021
Judgment pronounced
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
- 10 00
(R. ONKARAPPA)
LXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH63)
Bengaluru City.
JU DG MEN T
The suit has filed by the Plaintiff Bank for recovery of
Rs. 5,23,105/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Three
Thousands One Hundred and Five Only) with current and
future interest at the rate of 12.40% per annum
3 O.S.NO: 6081/2020
compounded at monthly rests, along with 2% penal interest
from the date of suit till realization.
2. The case of the Plaintiff in brief as per the
plaint is that, the plaintiff is a banking company
incorporated under the companies act and functioning
under the provisions of Banking Regulation Act, 1949. That
the defendant had approached the plaintiff bank for
availing a Mobi loan facility of Rs. 6,30,000/- for the
purchase of Brand new car namely Nissan Micra XLD Pre
Facelift against the security of the hypothecation of the
vehicle purchased. The same was duly sanctioned by the
plaintiff bank after considering the financial/documents
submitted by the defendant. Based on the representations
of the defendant, the plaintiff bank sanctioned and
communicated to the defendant, vide sanction intimation
letter dated 19.04.2018, the terms and conditions and on
due execution of the documents, the Mobi loan facility limit
of Rs. 6,30,000/- was extended to the defendant. The said
loan along with interest at the rate of 1 year MCLR (then
9.00 %) plus spread (then 3.40%) altogether that is 12.40%
4 O.S.NO: 6081/2020
per annum compounded at monthly rests at the time of
granting the loan and was repayable in 48 equitable
monthly installments of Rs. 16,800/- each. Penal interest
at the rate of 2% was payable on the delayed payments or
on non-compliance of terms and conditions of sanction. The
defendant was willing to the terms of the sanction. The
defendant had executed an agreement of Hypothecation
dated 19.04.2018, to secure the limit to an extent of Rs.
6,30,000/- together with interest, penal interest, cost and
charges wherein the schedule car was hypothecated in
favour of the plaintiff bank. The defendant failed to
maintain financial discipline and violated the terms and
conditions of sanction. The defendant totally due for Rs.
4,69,117.18 as on 05.03.2020. Despite several demands
the defendant failed to pay the said amount, hence the
plaintiff issued a notice on 06.03.2020 under section 13(2)
of the SARFAESI Act 2020, to the last known address of the
defendant. The demand notice dated 06.03.2020 have been
delivered. The records of transaction of the Mobi Loan
Facility are mentioned in the core banking solution
5 O.S.NO: 6081/2020
platform "finacle" as A/c No. 0399655000000282 as per
statement of accounts in respect of the Mobi loan account,
an amount of Rs. 5,23,105 is outstanding as on 25.11.2020
after reversing interest on penal interest. The compounded
effect of Penal interest in the account is reversed as per the
directives of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The
present rate of interest applicable in the account is 12.40%
per annum at monthly rests, and penal interest at 2% per
annum. Hence suit is before this court for recovery.
3. Suit summons issued against to the defendant.
The same has been duly served, even after servicing of the
suit summons to the defendant her appearance before the
court kept open till 23.03.2021. The defendant remained
absent. Hence the defendant placed into Exparte on
23.03.2021 and proceeded to recorded the evidence.
4. The Manager of the plaintiff bank one Sri.
Sachin Joseph S/o Mr. C.V. Joseph examined himself as
PW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 to
prove the claim of the bank. Learned Counsel for the
plaintiff filed written arguments. Perused the records.
6 O.S.NO: 6081/2020
5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case,
the following points arise for consideration of this court :-
1. Whether the defendant is due for
Rs. 5,23,105/- to the plaintiff
bank?
2. Whether the plaintiff bank is
entitled for decree for suit claim
with interest?
3. What order?
6. My findings on the above points are as under :-
Point No.1 - In the Affirmative;
Point No.2 - In the Affirmative;
Point No.3 - As per final order, for the
following :
R E A S ON S
7. Points No.1 & 2 :- Since these two points
inter-relating to each other, they have taken up together for
common discussion to avoid repetition of the facts.
8. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff bank
one Sachin Joseph S/o Mr. C.V. Joseph, Branch Manager
of the plaintiff bank examined himself as PW.1 and got
marked documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. In lieu of
7 O.S.NO: 6081/2020
examination in chief of PW1, he filed an affidavit. In the
affidavit the P.W.1 has reiterated the averments made in
plaint that, the plaintiff is a banking company incorporated
under the companies act and functioning under the
provisions of Banking Regulation Act, 1949. That the
defendant had approached the plaintiff bank for availing a
Mobi loan facility of Rs. 6,30,000/- for the purchase of
Brand new car namely Nissan Micra XLD Pre Facelift
against the security of the hypothecation of the vehicle
purchased. The same was duly sanctioned by the plaintiff
bank after considering the financial/documents submitted
by the defendant. Based on the representations of the
defendant, the plaintiff bank sanctioned and communicated
to the defendant, vide sanction intimation letter dated
19.04.2018, the terms and conditions and on due execution
of the documents, the Mobi loan facility limit of Rs.
6,30,000/- was extended to the defendant. The said loan
along with interest at the rate of 1 year MCLR (then 9.00 %)
plus spread (then 3.40%) altogether that is 12.40% per
annum compounded at monthly rests at the time of
8 O.S.NO: 6081/2020
granting the loan and was repayable in 48 equitable
monthly installments of Rs. 16,800/- each. Penal interest
at the rate of 2% was payable on the delayed payments or
on non-compliance of terms and conditions of sanction. The
defendant was willing to the terms of the sanction. The
defendant had executed an agreement of Hypothecation
dated 19.04.2018, to secure the limit to an extent of Rs.
6,30,000/- together with interest, penal interest, cost and
charges wherein the schedule car was hypothecated in
favour of the plaintiff bank. The defendant failed to
maintain financial discipline and violated the terms and
conditions of sanction. The defendant totally due for Rs.
4,69,117.18 as on 05.03.2020. Despite several demands
the defendant failed to pay the said amount, hence the
plaintiff issued a notice on 06.03.2020 under section 13(2)
of the SARFAESI Act 2020, to the last known address of the
defendant. The demand notice dated 06.03.2020 have been
delivered. The records of transaction of the Mobi Loan
Facility are mentioned in the core banking solution
platform "finacle" as A/c No. 0399655000000282 as per
9 O.S.NO: 6081/2020
statement of accounts in respect of the Mobi loan account,
an amount of Rs. 5,23,105 is outstanding as on 25.11.2020
after reversing interest on penal interest. The compounded
effect of Penal interest in the account is reversed as per the
directives of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The
present rate of interest applicable in the account is 12.40%
per annum at monthly rests, and penal interest at 2% per
annum. Hence suit is before this court for recovery.
9. In support to his case PW.1 got marking, the
Ex.P1 Sanction cum renewal of credit facility. Ex.P2 Loan
document. Ex.P3 Term loan pass sheet. Section 2(a), (b),
2a(c) of Bankers of Book Evidence Act as Ex.P4. Perused all
documents which are relied by the PW1. When after go
through all documents, all documents are evident and
substantiate the oral testimony of PW1. As the same oral
testimony of the P.W.1 and contents of EX.P1 to EX.P4 is
here remains as un-challenged as the defendant not
disputed the same, as he was placed ex parate even proper
service of the suit summons. These documents also
support the oral evidence of P.W.1 about the grant of loan,
10 O.S.NO: 6081/2020
rate of interest and other terms of the loan. As such I have
no hesitation to hold that plaintiff have succeeded in
proving his case by oral evidence coupled with
documentary evidence.
10. The bank has claimed interest at the rate of
12.40% from the date of the suit till realisation
Compounded at monthly along with 2% penal interest.
However after go through Ex.P1, Ex.P1 speaks that present
effective rate of 12.40% per annum at monthly rests. Penal
interest @ of 2.0% per annum will be charged as per rules
for defaults and non compliance of any of the sanction
stipulations. From close reading of Ex.P1 document, it is
evident that defendant agreed to pay interest on the
principal sum lent by the bank at the rate of 12.40 % per
annum above the Reserve Bank of India rate with monthly
rests shall be calculated and Penal interest @ of 2.00 % per
annum. Since the defendant not challenged the rate of
interest and contents of Ex.P1 before this court, I hold that
the plaintiff bank entitled the interest at 12.40% p.a.
compounded monthly along with penal interest at the rate
11 O.S.NO: 6081/2020
of 2.00% per annum from the date of suit till complete
realization. Accordingly, I answer the above points in the
Affirmative and proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff bank is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs. 5,23,105/-.
The defendant liable to pay the decretal amount to the bank along with interest @ 12.40% per annum compounded monthly rests along with 2% penal interest from the date of suit till complete realization. In default, the plaintiff bank is at liberty to recover the decretal amount from the defendants in accordance with law.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her and then corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 1 st day of October, 2021).
(R. ONKARAPPA), LXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, 12 O.S.NO: 6081/2020 Bengaluru City.
13 O.S.NO: 6081/2020A N N E X U R E I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
(1) Plaintiff's side :
P.W.1 - Sachin Joseph (2) Defendant's side : N I L II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(1) Plaintiff's side :
Ex.P1 Sanction cum renewal of credit facility. Ex.P2 Loan document.
Ex.P3 Term loan pass sheet. Ex.P4 Section 2(a), (b), 2a(c) of Bankers of Book Evidence Act (2) Defendant's side : N I L LXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH63) Bengaluru City.