Bangalore District Court
Canara Bank vs Sri Mahadevaswamy on 11 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND XVIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SCCH-22)
AT BENGALURU.
PRESENT: Sri. B. VENKATAPPA
B.A.LL.B.
XX Additional Small Causes Judge
& XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
DATED: This the 11th day of April, 2019.
S.C.No:1471/2018
PLAINTIFF - Canara Bank,
Peenya 3rd Stage,
Bangalore,
Represented by its duly constituted
GPA Holder and officer,
Sri. Suresh Dhaduti,
S/o Late Sri. P.S. Dhaudti,
Aged about 51 years.
(Rept. By: Sri. Mohan Raj,
Advocate, Bengaluru).
- Versus -
DEFENDANT - Sri Mahadevaswamy,
Aged about 43 years,
S/o Sri. Prasanna Devaru,
# 999/20, 1st Main Road,
JJ School Road,
N G O's Colony,
Kamalanagar,
Bangalore-560 079.
(Ex-parte).
2 SCCH-22
S.C.1471/2018
1. Date of Institution : 10.10.2018.
2. Nature of Suit : Recovery of Money
3. Date of Commencement : 10.04.2019
of Recording Evidence
4. Date of Judgment : 11.04.2019
5. Total duration : YEAR/S MONTH DAYS
00 06 01
(B. VENKATAPPA)
XX A.S.C.J. & XVIII A.C.M.M.,
Bengaluru.
3 SCCH-22
S.C.1471/2018
:: JUDGMENT ::
The plaintiff bank has filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.1,17,000.92 together with interest at the rate of 10.25% per annum compounded monthly plus 2% penal interest per annum from the date of suit till its realization and cost of the suit.
2. The brief case of the plaintiff bank is as under:
The plaintiff bank is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer) of Undertaking Act 1970. The defendant had approached the plaintiff bank vide his application dated:31.03.2016 for sanction of LHV SRTO loan under the Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana Scheme for the purposes of purchasing Atul Gem Cargo XL pick up three wheeler valued at Rs.2,20,500/-. Accordingly the defendant has sought for the loan of Rs.1,85,000/- and he had offered the hypothecation of Atul Gem Cargo XL pick up three wheeler vehicle to be purchased as security to the said loan. The application submitted by the defendant was processed by the plaintiff bank and the competent authority communicated the sanction terms and conditions to the defendant, which was agreed and 4 SCCH-22 S.C.1471/2018 acknowledged by him. The plaintiff has sanctioned an amount of Rs.1,85,000/- to the defendant and the defendant had executed deed of hypothecation Re: Vehicles on 12.04.2016 and the said loan being under schematic lending, it did not attract any guarantors. The documents being executed in the presence of the branch officials. Letter evidencing execution of documents too was obtained in confirmation. As per the sanction terms and conditions, the defendant was required to remit the EMIs and the entire loan was to be repaid in 36 EMIs of Rs.7,159/- each for 35 EMI's and last installment is of Rs.5,499/- and the first such EMI was to commence from May 2016 onwards. The defendant has executed necessary standing instructions in favour of the Bank in the prescribed format and agreed to remit necessary charges, levies, commission, incidental charges etc., and also interest at the rate of 11.30% per annum compounded with monthly rests on the outstanding liability in the loan account.
The defendant has also agreed to pay penal interest at the rate of 2% per annum in case of default in payment of EMIs. The defendant has agreed the terms and conditions including any changes that may be effected by the plaintiff bank from 5 SCCH-22 S.C.1471/2018 time to time. Inspite of repeated demands and personal contacts made by the plaintiff bank from time to time for recovery of the dues, the defendant has failed to remit the EMIs. Hence, the plaintiff bank issued a legal notice on 13.09.2018 to the defendant by demanding clearance of the entire liability due to the plaintiff bank. The defendant is liable to pay sum of Rs.1,16,220.92 as on 25.09.2018 and unapplied interest till the date of suit of Rs.780/- in total Rs.1,17,000.92. The cause of action for the suit arose on 31.03.2016 when the defendant submitted the application for loan and on subsequent dates within the jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, this suit.
3. Inspite of service of summons, the defendant remained absent and he has been placed Ex-parte.
4. In order to substantiate the case made out by the plaintiff bank, its officer as well as the GPA Holder by name Sri. Suresh Dhaduti examined as P.W.1 and got marked ten documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. Thereafter, plaintiff closed its side evidence.
6 SCCH-22 S.C.1471/2018
5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the materials placed on record.
6. The points that would arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim together with interest as claimed ?
2. What order or decree ?
7. My findings on the above points are as under :
POINT No.1 - In the Affirmative.
POINT No.2 - As per final order,
for the following :-
REASONS
POINT No.1 :-
8. The plaintiff Bank has filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of money. In order to substantiate the case made by the plaintiff Bank, its officer as well as the GPA Holder by name Sri. Suresh Dhaduti, examined as P.W.1. P.W.1 by filing his affidavit deposed before this Court that, the defendant had approached the plaintiff bank vide his application dated:31.03.2016 for sanction of LHV SRTO loan under the Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana Scheme for the purposes of purchasing Atul Gem Cargo XL pick up three 7 SCCH-22 S.C.1471/2018 wheeler valued at Rs.2,20,500/-. Accordingly the defendant has sought for the loan of Rs.1,85,000/- and he had offered the hypothecation of Atul Gem Cargo XL pick up three wheeler vehicle to be purchased as security to the said loan. The application submitted by the defendant was processed by the plaintiff bank and the competent authority communicated the sanction terms and conditions to the defendant, which was agreed and acknowledged by him. The plaintiff has sanctioned an amount of Rs.1,85,000/- to the defendant and the defendant had executed deed of hypothecation Re:
Vehicles on 12.04.2016 and the said loan being under schematic lending, it did not attract any guarantors. The documents being executed in the presence of the branch officials. Letter evidencing execution of documents too was obtained in confirmation. As per the sanction terms and conditions, the defendant was required to remit the EMIs and the entire loan was to be repaid in 36 EMIs of Rs.7,159/- each for 35 EMI's and last installment is of Rs.5,499/- and the first such EMI was to commence from May 2016 onwards. The defendant has executed necessary standing instructions in favour of the Bank in the prescribed format and agreed to
8 SCCH-22 S.C.1471/2018 remit necessary charges, levies, commission, incidental charges etc., and also interest at the rate of 11.30% per annum compounded with monthly rests on the outstanding liability in the loan account. The defendant has also agreed to pay penal interest at the rate of 2% per annum in case of default in payment of EMIs. The defendant has agreed the terms and conditions including any changes that may be effected by the plaintiff bank from time to time. Inspite of repeated demands and personal contacts made by the plaintiff bank from time to time for recovery of the dues, the defendant has failed to remit the EMIs. Hence, the plaintiff bank issued a legal notice on 13.09.2018 to the defendant by demanding clearance of the entire liability due to the plaintiff bank. The defendant is liable to pay sum of Rs.1,16,220.92 as on 25.09.2018 and unapplied interest till the date of suit of Rs.780/- in total Rs.1,17,000.92. Hence, P.W.1 prayed for decree the suit.
9. In support of his evidence, P.W.1 got marked ten documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. Out of which, Ex.P.1 is the Loan Application Form. It shows that, the defendant has requested the plaintiff bank to sanction loan of Rs.1,85,000/-
9 SCCH-22 S.C.1471/2018 for purchasing Atul Gem Cargo XL pick up three wheeler. Ex.P.2 is the Loan Sanction Letter. It shows that, the plaintiff bank has sanctioned the loan of Rs.1,85,000/- to the defendant on the interest at the rate of 11.30% per annum for the purpose of purchasing Atul Gem Cargo XL pick up three wheeler. Ex.P.3 is the Deed of Hypothecation dated:12.04.2016. It shows that, the defendant has agreed to repay loan amount of Rs.1,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 11.30% per annum compounded monthly and over due interest at the 2% per annum in thirty six installments each of Rs.7,159/- and last installment of Rs.5,499/- by hypothecating the Atul Gem Cargo XL Pick Up Three Wheeler to be purchased by him in favour of the plaintiff bank. Ex.P.4 is the Letter Evidencing Execution of Documents executed by the defendant. It shows that, the defendant has confirmed the execution of loan documents on 12.04.2016 in respect of credit facility. Ex.P.5 is the 'B' Register Extract. It shows that, the defendant is the registered owner of the XL Pick up three wheeler and he has paid the tax. Ex.P.6 is the Statement of Account. It shows that, the defendant is due a sum of Rs.1,17,000.92 as on the date of suit. Ex.P.7 is the 10 SCCH-22 S.C.1471/2018 copy of Legal Notice dated:13.09.2018. It shows that, the plaintiff bank has called upon the defendant to pay the balance loan amount of Rs.1,12,780/- with interest plus penal interest at the rate of 13.30% per annum. Ex.P.8 is the Postal Receipt and Ex.P.9 is the Postal Acknowledgment. It shows that, the legal notice issued by the plaintiff was served to the defendant. Ex.P.10 is the Samuktha Karnataka daily news paper. It shows that, the plaintiff bank has issue summons to the defendant through paper publication.
10. In this case, inspite of service of summons, defendant remained absent and he has been placed Ex-parte. Whatever spoken by the P.W.1 has remained unchallenged. To controvert the allegations made in the plaint as well as in the affidavit filed by way of examination-in-chief, the defendant has not chosen to cross-examine P.W.1 and has not chosen to file the written statement. The documentary evidences coupled with the evidence of P.W.1 has not been controverter by the defendant in any manner as stated above. The documents produced by the plaintiff at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 clearly reveals that, the defendant has availed the loan of Rs.1,85,000/- for the purpose of purchasing Atul Gem Cargo 11 SCCH-22 S.C.1471/2018 XL pick up three wheeler and agreed the terms and conditions of the plaintiff bank. Further it reveals that, the defendant has agreed to repay the loan amount with interest at the rate of 11.30% per annum compounded monthly raising or failing with the base rate of interest as fixed by the plaintiff bank in 36 equated monthly installments each of Rs.7,159/- and last installment of Rs.5,499/-. Further it reveals that, the defendant has executed Deed of Hypothecation by hypothecating the above said three wheeler to be purchased. Further it reveals that, the defendant is due a sum of Rs.1,17,000.92 as on the date of suit to the plaintiff bank. Further it reveals that, inspite of service of notice the defendant has not made the payment to the plaintiff Bank as per the agreed terms and conditions. If, these factual features are put together, it can be stated that, the plaintiff Bank has satisfactorily proved it's case with legal evidence. The plaintiff has claimed the outstanding amount of Rs.1,17,000.92 with interest at the rate of 10.25% per annum and 2% penal interest per annum from the date of suit till its realization as agreed by the defendant. The said agreed rate of interest is evident from the documents 12 SCCH-22 S.C.1471/2018 produced by the plaintiff. Hence, interest at the rate of 12.25% per annum is levied, it would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, I record my findings on the above point No.1 in the Affirmative.
POINT No.2:-
11. As the result of my foregoing reasons and discussions, the suit of the plaintiff succeeded and deserves to be decreed with cost.
In the result, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff as against the defendant is hereby decreed with costs.
The defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,17,000.92 (Rupees One Lakh Seventeen Thousand and Ninety Two Paisa only) with interest at the rate of 12.25% per annum from date of the suit till its realization.
The defendant shall pay the decreetal amount to the plaintiff Bank within 3 months from the date of decree.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of April, 2019).
(B. VENKATAPPA) XX Additional Small Causes Judge & XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
13 SCCH-22 S.C.1471/2018 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff :
P.W.1 : Sri. Suresh Dhaduti.
Documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 - Loan Application Form.
Ex.P.2 - Loan Sanction Letter.
Ex.P.3 - Deed of Hypothecation.
Ex.P.4 - Letter Evidencing Execution of
Documents.
Ex.P.5 - 'B' Register Extract.
Ex.P.6 - Statement of Loan Account.
Ex.P.7 - Copy of Legal Notice.
Ex.P.8 - Postal Receipt.
Ex.P.9 - Postal Acknowledgment.
Ex.P.10 - Samuktha Karnataka Daily News Paper.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the defendant :
- Nil -
Documents marked on behalf of the defendant :
- Nil -
(B. VENKATAPPA) XX A.S.C.J. & XVIII A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.