Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Smt. Meena on 15 January, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMIT DASS, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE -
01, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
CS No. 59092/16
State Bank of India
Through Stressed Assets Recovery Centre ( SARC)
RACPC, First floor,
11, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110001. ...Plaintiff
Versus
1.Smt. Meena W/o Shri Krishan Kumar R/o H. NO. 302, Village Mukhmalpur, New Delhi-110036.
2. Shri Nitesh Kumar S/o Shri Krishan Kumar R/o H. No. 302, Village Mukhmalpur, New Delhi - 110036 ..... Defendants Suit presented On : 27.10.2016 Arguments Concluded On : 15.01.2018 Judgment Pronounced On : 15.01.2018 EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1. The is a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,78,922/- filed by the plaintiff. Brief facts of the case are :
(a) Plaintiff-bank is a body corporate incorporated under the State Bank of India Act, 1955. Shri A. K. Chauhan, Manager/ CCO the State Bank of India, is competent and authorised to sign and verify the pleadings, Vakalatnamas, affidavits, applications and CS no. 59092/16 State Bank of India vs. Smt. Meena & another Pages 1 of 6 executions and file the present suit.
(b) The State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Centre has been established by the plaintiff bank to deal exclusively with the Non-performing Asset Accounts of branches of State Bank of India pertaining to RACPC situated within Delhi / New Delhi for recovery of the amounts due against the said borrowers, etc hence the NPA accounts of the branches throughout Delhi have been transferred to Stressed Assets Recovery Centre. Hence, the present suit is being filed by Stressed Assets Recovery Centre in place of Karol Bagh Branch of plaintiff.
(c) Defendant no.1 as borrower and defendant no.2 as Co-
borrower, approached Karol Bagh Branch of plaintiff for availing a vehicle loan for purchasing Toyota Innova Star Vx and applied for a loan of Rs.13,50,000/- vide loan application dated 28.04.2014 furnishing / filing relevant documents.
(d) Ms. Meena, the Principal borrower had entered into the loan agreement by agreeing to all the terms and condition of the said loan, vide sanction form for vehicle loan dated 30.04.2014. The plaintiff agreed and thereafter paid the loan amount of INR Rs.13,50,000/- to Ms. Meena on 30.04.2014. Sh. Nitesh Kumar was the co-borrower.
(e) The defendant in terms of repayment schedule inscribed in the sanction letter dated 30.04.2014, undertook to repay the said loan in 84 monthly installments of INR 23,080/-. The defendant loan account number maintained with the plaintiff is 33810110848.
(f) The defendant undertook to comply with the terms of the agreement of vehicle loan dated 30.04.2014. After availing the loan facility, Ms. Meena willfully started defaulting in the monthly CS no. 59092/16 State Bank of India vs. Smt. Meena & another Pages 2 of 6 payment that had to be paid to the plaintiff Bank as per the agreement and her son - defendant no. 2 herein also failed to adhere to financial discipline and committed willful defaults till date. Defendant no. 2 being the co-borrower as per the loan cum hypothecation agreement executed on 03.05.2014 was equally and jointly liable to pay the amount along with interest thereon as their liability was joint and co-extensive.
(g) However, the defendant did not pay any heed and remained defaulter despite letter dated 02.09.2016 duly served upon her. The defendant was asked verbally, telephonically as well as through personal visits of the officials of the plaintiff Bank besides being served to pay the reminder notices.
(h) The defendant had also agreed to pay the interest at the rate mentioned in the loaning document. When after request and reminders to the defendants, the defendants failed to pay the loan, the plaintiff compelled to serve notice u/s 13 (2) of SARFESI Act, 2002 dated 06.06.2015 calling upon the defendants to discharge in full their liabilities.
(i) Due to non compliance, the plaintiff through legal course obtained the physical possession of the vehicle on 14.08.2015. The defendant miserably failed to adhere to the financial discipline as they failed to clear the outstanding of Rs.12,84,930/- alongwith interest and cost. The plaintiff started sale cum tender proceedings and the vehicle was sold to the highest / successful bidder Sh. Anil Kumar who deposited the initial amount of 25% as bid amount and balance amount of Rs.9,05,000/- which was duly credited in the loan account of defendants. A sum of Rs.5,71,587/- was due and outstanding in the vehicle loan account of defendant including CS no. 59092/16 State Bank of India vs. Smt. Meena & another Pages 3 of 6 interest calculated upto 01.09.2016.
(j) The plaintiff maintains proper books of account during the usual and ordinary course of its day to day business. As per the statement of account duly certified under bankers book evidence act and as per the works sheet (which includes interest and other charges) plaintiff is entitled to recovery of INR 5,78,922/- from the defendant. Hence, the present suit.
2. Upon filing of the present suit this court issued summons to the defendants. Defendants were duly served. However, none appeared on behalf of the defendants. Subsequently vide order dated 05.04.2017, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte by my ld. Predecessor.
3. To prove its case, the plaintiff has examined Mr. A. K. Chauhan, Manager of State Bank of India as PW-1. He tendered evidence by way of Ex. PW-1/A. In Ex. PW-1/A, PW-1 has reiterated the facts mentioned in the plaint and put reliance on the following documents:
i. certified true copy of gazette notification is mark X ii. Sanction letter is Ex. PW1/2 iii. Retail invoice is Ex. PW1/3 i. car loan application is Ex. PW1/3 ii. Delivery note is Ex. PW1/4 iii. Loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 03.05.2014 is Ex. PW1/5 (colly) iv. vehicle delivery letter dated is Ex. PW1/6 v. Cibil annexure 1 Ex. PW1/7 vi. annexure CAR VIII Ex. PW1/8 vii. Operation Letter is Ex. PW1/9 viii. Undertaking for deduction of EMI is Ex. PW1/10 ix. Letter dated 12.02.2015 is Ex. PW1/11 x. Letter dated 06.06.2015 is Ex. PW1/12 xi. Letter dated 26.07.2015 is Ex. PW1/13 xii. Notice u/s 13(2) of SARFESI Act dated 06.06.2015 is Ex. PW1/14 xiii. Letter of surrender is Ex. PW1/15 CS no. 59092/16 State Bank of India vs. Smt. Meena & another Pages 4 of 6 xiv. Sale cum auction dated 27.11.2015 is Ex. PW1/16 xv. Certificate of sale is Ex.PW1/17 xvi. Removal of hypothecation is Ex. PW1/18 xvii. legal notice dated 02.09.2016 is Ex. PW1/19 xviii. Postal receipt is Ex. PW1/20 (colly) xix. Statement of accounts duly certified as per Banker's Book Evidence Act is Ex. PW1/21 xx. certificate of accrued interest is Ex. PW1/22 xxi. certificate u/s 65 B of Evidence Act is Ex. PW1/23 xxii. photocopy of customer receipt dated 03.05.2014 is mark A xxiii. photocopy of customer receipt dated 30.04.2014 is mark B xxiv. photocopy of customer receipt dated 04.05.2014 is mark C xxv. Copy of banker's cheque dated 05.05.2014 is mark D xxvi. photocopy election ID card is mark E xxvii. photocopy of PAN Card is mark F xxviii. Pan Card of defendant no.2 is Mark G xxix. Election I card of defendant no. 2 is Mark H xxx. Electricity bill is mark I xxxi. Insurance bond is mark J xxxii. photocopy of cheques given by auction purchaser is Mark K (Colly) xxxiii. Photocopy of passport is Mark L xxxiv. Photocopy of PAN Card of auction purchaser is Mark M
4. I have heard the counsel for the plaintiff and have gone through the record carefully.
5. The testimony of PW-1 remains unrebutted and unchallenged.
Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the deposition made by PW-1.
6. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff granted a vehicle loan of Rs. 13,50,000/- to Smt Meena vide sanction letter dated 30.04.2014 which is Ex.PW1/2. The said loan was repayable in 84 monthly installments of INR 23,080/-. As per the statement of account which is duly certified under Banker's Book Evidence Act is Ex.PW-1/21 as on 20.09.2016 the amount CS no. 59092/16 State Bank of India vs. Smt. Meena & another Pages 5 of 6 towards outstanding Rs.5,78,922/- was due to be payable by the defendants. The suit is within time.
7. On the basis of the above mentioned documents and testimony of PW-1, the plaintiff Bank has duly proved its case. Plaintiff Bank is entitled for recovery of amount of Rs.5,78,922/- alongwith interest at the rate 12 percent since the filing of the suit till realization.
8. Hence a decree in the sum of Rs.5,78,922/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest as mentioned above is granted in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants. Cost of the suit also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree sheet by prepared accordingly.
9. File be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Court on (Sumit Dass) 15.01.2018. Additional District Judge-01, NDD/PHC/New Delhi/15.01.2018 CS no. 59092/16 State Bank of India vs. Smt. Meena & another Pages 6 of 6