Delhi District Court
Mangalore (South Kanara vs Coimbatore Natarajan Annadurai on 9 October, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH VINOD KUMAR MEENA: CIVIL JUDGE
13 (CENTRAL):THC:DELHI
CS No. 119/14
Unique ID no.02401C008512013
Corporation Bank,
LIC Card Centre, New Delhi, A body Corporate
constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition
and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (Act no.3 of
1980 (Act No.3 of 1980) having its Head Office at
Mangalore (South Kanara, Karnataka State) and
having a branch at Corporation Bank, LIC Card
Centre, 16/10, FF, Main Arya Samaj Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005. ... Plaintiff
VERSUS
Coimbatore Natarajan Annadurai, S/o Sh. Natrajan
Old No. 942B, New No.907X, 477, Housing Unit,
Komaraplm, P.O. SEL, Vapuram (N), CBE,
Coimbatore641026 (Tamilnadu)
Also at:
LIC of India, P.B. No. 3805,
First Floor, United India Building,
Avinashi Road, Coimbatore641018 (Tamilnadu) ...Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 1,22,099.41/ (RUPEES ONE LAKH
TWENTY TWO THOUSAND NINETY NINE AND FORTY ONE
PAISA ONLY)
Date of institution of case : 21.02.2013
Reserved for judgment : 09.10.2014
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 09.10.2014
Suit No. 119/14 Corporation Bank Vs Satish Kumar Page 1 of 7
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1 By this order I shall dispose off the suit filed by the plaintiff for
recovery of Rs.1,22099.41/ alongwith pendentelite and future interest
@2.5% p.m.
2 The relevant facts pleaded in the plaint which are inevitable to be
reproduced here are as follows:
(i) That the plaintiff is Nationalized Bank and is a body corporate under
the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1980 (Act No.3 of 1980) having its Head Office at having its
registered office at above mentioned address.
(ii) The defendant approached the plaintiff bank for issuing a LIC Credit
Card and submitted duly filled and signed application no. 473/005
alongwith self attested copies of PAN Card, Driving Licence, Form
No.16A, ITR alongwith computation of income etc. for the proof of
identity and residence of the defendant. After due consideration of
the request of defendant, the plaintiff bank sanction a limit of
Rs.20,000/ on 15.01.2010 issued a LIC Credit Card No.
4628460004475000 to defendant.
(iii) As per terms and conditions of the LIC Credit Card, the defendant
was under an obligation to sign the original charge slip at the time of
purchasing from the sellers/member establishments and to collect
Suit No. 119/14 Corporation Bank Vs Satish Kumar Page 2 of 7
original bill from the Sellers/Member Establishments at the time of
purchasing of goods/service etc.
(iv) The defendant purchased goods/things from the different
stores/shops (Member Establishments) by using the LIC Credit Card
from 07.02.2010 to 28.02.2010 and the amount of those goods/things
have been claimed Seller/Branches of ATMS of Axis Bank and State
Bank/Member Establishments through VISA and the same have been
paid by the plaintiff by debiting the LIC Card account no.
4462860004475000 of the defendant which were duly reflected in
the periodical statement/bills of the defendant.
(v) As per the terms and conditions of the LIC Credit Card user guide,
defendant is liable to make the payments of all the outstandings of
the said credit card and other charges as applicable w.r.t the LIC
Credit Card No. 462860004475000. The plaintiff has repeatedly
called upon the defendant to clear and liquidate the dues in respect to
the said credit card. The defendant failed to maintain financial
discipline and to deposit regular minimum amount in the Card
account, therefore, the plaintiff sent a Recall Notice dt. 12.11.2012
upon the defendant for payment of outstanding amount but to no
avail. Hence, the present suit has been filed for recovery of
Rs.1,22,099.41/ alongwith pendentilelite and future interest
@2.50% p.m till realization in favour of plaintiff and against the
defendant.
Suit No. 119/14 Corporation Bank Vs Satish Kumar Page 3 of 7
3 The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery under Order 37
CPC, however, vide order dt. 24.03.2014 the Ld. Predecessor has treated the
present suit as an ordinary suit as there is no privity of contract between the
parties.
4 Defendant was duly served through ordinary summons. Despite
service, the defendant failed to appear in the court. Therefore, the
defendant was proceeded exparte vide order dt. 24.09.2014 by the Court.
5 In support of his case, the plaintiff has examined Sh. Ashwin Trikey,
Senior Manager of plaintiff bank as PW1. PW1 stated and reiterated on
oath the contents of the plaint. He has exhibited certain documents on
record which are marked as under:
(i) Ex PW1/1 is the application for LIC Credit Card.
(ii)Ex PW1/2 to Ex PW1/37 are the Estatements/bills
(iii)Ex PW1/38 is the recall notice.
(iv) Ex PW1/39 is the speed post receipt.
(v) Ex PW1/40 is the screen shot
(vi)Ex PW1/41 is the certificate under Bankers Book Evidence Act.
(vii) Ex PW1/42 is the terms & conditions of LIC credit Card.
(viii) Ex PW1/43 is the agreement dt. 30.03.2009 (OSR)
Suit No. 119/14 Corporation Bank Vs Satish Kumar Page 4 of 7
(ix) Ex PW1/44 is the agreement between the plaintiff and the Opus
Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (OSR)
(x) Ex PW1/45 is the power of attorney of the Chief Manager. (OSR)
After recording the evidence, the matter was fixed for exparte final
arguments.
6 I have heard the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and perused the record
carefully.
7 The testimony of PW1 has remained uncontroverted and unchallenged
as the Defendant has failed to contest the suit. There is no reason to
disbelieve the testimony of the witnesses. I have also considered the point of
limitation and jurisdiction. It is specifically argued by the Ld. counsel for
plaintiff that cause of action arose within jurisdiction of the Court.
Accordingly, the Court has territorial jurisdiction to decide the present suit.
After hearing the submissions and perusing the averments made in the
evidence, it is observed by the Court that the cause of action arose within
the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Accordingly, the Court has
jurisdiction to decide the present suit.
8 It is specifically proved by the witness PW1 that the defendant has
approached to the plaintiff bank for issuing of LIC Credit Card submitted
duly filed and signed the application on 473/005 which is Ex PW1/1 and
Suit No. 119/14 Corporation Bank Vs Satish Kumar Page 5 of 7
the Estatements/bills of the defendant were duly paid by the plaintiff bank,
the statements/bills from 21.02.2010 to 21.12.2012 as Ex PW1/2 to Ex
PW1/36. The plaintiff has duly proved the Recall Notice dt. 12.11.2012
through regd. post on 16.11.2012 as Ex PW1/37 and speed post receipt dt.
16.11.2012as Ex PW1/38, calling upon the defendant to pay sum of Rs.1,04,729.57/. The plaintiff has duly proved the suit amount of Rs.1,22,099.41/ includes outstanding (Principal) of Rs.19,189/ and finance charges, late payment, over limit, other charges and interest of Rs.1,02,910.41/ by way of evidence as not contradicted by the defendant as defendant already proceeded exparte. It is also unrebutted and uncontradicted that the defendant has not made the payment as per terms and conditions mentioned in Ex PW1/41. The testimony of the witnesses and various documents placed and proved on record and in absence of any evidence to the contrary, the suit of the Plaintiff is hereby decreed and a decree for recovery of Rs.1,22,099.41/.
9 As far as the pendenlite and future interest @ 2.5% per month on the adjudicated amount, as prayed, is concerned it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that there was a contract or a custom or usage in the market which entitles the plaintiff to receive the interest @ 2.5 % per month as pendentlite and future interest. PW1 Sh. Ashwin Trikey in his examination in chief has specifically prove through document Ex PW1/2 & Ex PW1/41 that there was contract which entitles the plaintiff to receive Suit No. 119/14 Corporation Bank Vs Satish Kumar Page 6 of 7 pendentlite and future interest @ 2.5% per month as document Ex PW1/2 & Ex PW1/41 specifically mentioned at the end that in case of failure in making the payment by the defendant the defendant shall be liable to pay interest @2.5% p.m. 10 Thus, in view of, the above said discussion the suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,22,099.41/ (Rupees one lac twenty two thousand ninety nine and ninety nine and forty one only) along with cost and pendentlite and future interest at the rate of 2.5% per month.
11 Decree sheet be prepared separately accordingly. File be consigned to records room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court
today i.e. on 09.10.2014
(Total pages 1 to 7) (Vinod Kumar Meena)
Civil Judge/Central13/09.10.2014
Suit No. 119/14 Corporation Bank Vs Satish Kumar Page 7 of 7