Delhi District Court
Suit No.1152/18 Rekha Trehan vs . Suman Rani & Ors. on 23 October, 2019
Suit no.1152/18 Rekha Trehan vs. Suman Rani & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF MS. SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY,
CIVIL JUDGE, EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Suit no.:1152/18
In the matter of--
Rekha Trehan
w/o Sh. Jitender Kumar
r/o B78, Anand Vihar Colony,
Delhi110092
......Plaintiff
versus
1.Suman Rani w/o Sh. Ravinder Singh office at: 105, First Floor, National Arcade Complex, Ghazipur, New Delhi110096 Proprietor and Authorized Signatory of M/s Pam Interiors & Exteriors
2. M/s Pam Interiors & Exteriors office at: 105, First Floor, National Arcade Complex, Ghazipur, New Delhi110096
3. Suman Rani w/o Sh. Ravinder Singh Proprietor and Authorized Signatory of M/s Pam Interiors & Exteriors, M127/B, Sector 23, Sanjay Nagar, Page 1 of 8 Suit no.1152/18 Rekha Trehan vs. Suman Rani & Ors.
Ghaziabad UP201001 ......Defendants Date of Institution: 27.11.2018 Date of reservation for judgment: 01.10.2019 Date of Judgment: 23.10.2019 EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 78,000/ alongwith interest till realisation under Order 37 Rule 1(2)(b)
(ii) of CPC against the defendant. However, vide separate statement of the Counsel for plaintiff dated 03.12.2018, the suit was converted into an ordinary suit.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff, that plaintiff is doing the business work of exteriors. The defendant no.1 is also doing a business of interiors and exteriors at its registered office address. It is further stated that the defendant no.1 taking the advantage of the same business established a good relation with the plaintiff and also took the plaintiff in full confidence.
3. It is further stated that on 05.02.2018, the defendant made a request for loan amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ from the plaintiff to meet the urgent need for its business with a promise to return within a month. It is further stated that defendant showed her helplessness to obtain the loan amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ instantly from any other connection. It is further stated that Page 2 of 8 Suit no.1152/18 Rekha Trehan vs. Suman Rani & Ors.
defendant assured the plaintiff that the loan amount will be returned without fail and there would be no failure in returning the loan amount as promised within a month, the plaintiff promised to arrange a loan amount of Rs. 1,25,000/ for helping the defendant.
4. It is further stated that seeing the anxiety of the defendant no.1, the plaintiff through her account in HDFC Bank Ltd. transferred a sum of Rs. 50,000/ to the bank account of Pam Interiors & Exteriors Kotak Mahindra Bank Branch, Jagrity Enclave Vikas Marg Delhi110092, through bank transfer reference no.37180468811816 on 06.02.2018. Further, again on 07.02.2018, the plaintiff transferred the amount of Rs. 75,000/ to the defendant's firm account NEFT DR to KKBK0004584 Pam Interiors & ExteriorsNET Bank MUMNO 38180470155720Loan. It is further stated that defendant did not return the loan amount with interest within a month from the date of receipt of the loan amount and after one month, the plaintiff asked the defendant on phone to repay the loan amount as promised but the defendant showed her unwillingness to repay the loan amount. But on several persuasion, the defendant unwillingly gave a cheque of Kotak Mahindra Bank bearing cheque no. 000100 dated 24.03.2018 for Rs. 50,000/ in favour of the plaintiff and thereafter the plaintiff asked the defendant for remaining loan amount alongwith interest, the defendant reluctantly gave the evasive reply to pay the rest of balance loan amount to the plaintiff.
Page 3 of 8Suit no.1152/18 Rekha Trehan vs. Suman Rani & Ors.
5. It is further stated that on 24.03.2018, on presentation, the said cheque of Rs. 50,000/ was returned unpaid with remarks "Funds insufficient" vide returning memo dated 28.03.2018. Thereafter, legal notice dated 17.04.2018 was sent to the defendant and after receiving the legal notice, defendant asked the plaintiff to present the aforesaid cheque to HDFC Bank for realization of the amount of Rs. 50,000/. It is further stated that the plaintiff again presented the aforesaid cheque dated 24.03.2018, the said cheque was again returned unpaid with remarks "Funds insufficient" alongwith returning memo dated 27.04.2018 and the plaintiff informed the defendant about the same facts. The defendant made a request to the plaintiff to represent the cheque 3rd time and assured the plaintiff that the said cheque will be encashed. On presentation, the cheque bearing no. 0001000 dated 24.03.2018 was again returned unpaid with same remarks "Funds Insufficient" vide returning memo dated 30.05.2018 and thereafter the plaintiff met the defendant and showed her all the three returning memos.
6. Thereafter, the plaintiff threatened the defendant for several legal (criminal and civil) actions against her and apprised the consequences of legal course. Upon this, the defendant gave another cheque no. 385168 dated 06.06.2018 for Rs. 50,000/ of OBC Bank, Branch Noida and took back the previous unpaid returned cheque bearing no. 000100 dated 24.03.2018 of the Kotak Mahindra Bank. On presentation, the cheque bearing no. 385168 dated 06.06.2018 has been encashed. It is further stated Page 4 of 8 Suit no.1152/18 Rekha Trehan vs. Suman Rani & Ors.
that thereafter, the plaintiff demanded balance of loan amount of Rs. 78,000/ with 18% interest and 18% interest for 4 months period on the interest accrued for Rs. 50,000/ but the defendant flatly refused to pay any further amount to the plaintiff either by cheque or by bank transfer or by cash. It is further stated that the plaintiff again served a legal notice dated 07.08.2018 served upon the defendant.
7. Summons were issued to the defendant. None has appeared on behalf of defendant despite service. Hence, defendant was proceeded ex parte on 11.03.2019.
8. Subsequently, plaintiff examined herself in evidence as PW1. She relied upon her testimony Ex. PW1/A and the following documents:
Ex. PW1/1 Copy of bank statement
Mark A Copy of cheque dated 24.03.2018
Ex. PW1/3 Returning memo dated 28.03.2018
Ex. PW1/4 and Ex. Legal notice dated 17.04.2018 with
PW1/5 original postal receipt
Ex. PW1/6 Returning memo dated 27.04.2018
Ex. PW1/7 Returning memo dated 30.05.2018
Ex. PW1/8 Copy of bank statement dated
22.07.2018
Ex. PW1/9 and Ex. Legal notice dated 07.08.2018
PW1/10 and Ex. alongwith postal receipt and tracking
PW1/11 (colly) report
Ex. PW1/12 Certificate under Section 65B of
Page 5 of 8
Suit no.1152/18 Rekha Trehan vs. Suman Rani & Ors.
Evidence Act.
9. Plaintiff closed her evidence on 03.09.2019.
10.Final arguments are heard. Record is perused.
11.At the very outset, it is to be noted that the testimony of the Plaintiff who stepped in the witness box as PW1 has gone unrebutted, unchallenged and uncontroverted. In the said unrebutted testimony, PW1 has stated that she in good faith, gave a loan of Rs.1,25,000/ to the defendant through bank account transfer. It is stated by PW1 that she transferred Rs.50,000/ on 06.02.2018 and Rs. 75,000/ on 07.02.2018 to the defendant and the same is reflected in the bank account statement of plaintiff which is at Ex. PW1/1. The said facts have been stated on oath by PW1 in Ex. PW1/A.
12.It is pertinent to note that the Defendant in this matter is ex parte and thus the statement of PW1 to the said effect has gone unrebutted. Again, the veracity of the said documents has also not been questioned. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the witness or the documents brought on record. PW1 has also placed on record that in a cheque dated 24.03.2018, Mark A issued by the defendant to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.50,000/. However, this cheque was returned thrice on presentment for reasons, 'funds insufficient'. The returning memos are Ex. PW1/3, Ex. PW1/6 and Ex. PW1/7.
Page 6 of 8Suit no.1152/18 Rekha Trehan vs. Suman Rani & Ors.
13.Plaintiff has also proved on record the legal notices dated 17.04.2018 Ex. PW1/4 and 07.08.2018 Ex. PW1/9 sent to the Defendant. It has come in the evidence of the PW1 that despite service of the said legal notice, the Defendant has failed to pay the amount claimed in the present suit.
14.In view of the documents proved on record including the Bank Account statement Ex. PW1/1 alongwith Certificate under Section 65B, Evidence Act Ex. PW1/12, Returning memos of Cheque dated 24.03.2018 which are at Ex. PW1/3, PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/7, I find that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover outstanding sum of Rs. 75,000/ from the Defendant. It is ordered accordingly.
15.On the question of interest, since the Plaintiff has been able to prove that it is entitled to the aforesaid sum of Rs. 75,000/, I also find that the Plaintiff is entitled to interest. The plaintiff has claimed Rs. 3000/ as interest for four months period i.e., 06.02.2018 to 05.06.2018 @ 18%. Further, the plaintiff has also claimed interest @18% till realisation of the suit. The interest being charged is unconscionably high. In my view, considering the friendly nature of loan, ends of justice shall be served in case simple interest @ 6% p.a. is awarded from the date of filing of this suit till its realization on the aforesaid sum of Rs. 75,000/. Thus, the Plaintiff is awarded simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a. to be calculated on the sum of Rs. 75,000/ from the date of filing of this suit till realization.
Page 7 of 8Suit no.1152/18 Rekha Trehan vs. Suman Rani & Ors.
Relief
16.Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is exparte decreed against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 75,000/ along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from date of filing the suit till the realization of the decreetal amount.
17.Plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs of the present suit. Let a decree sheet be prepared in the aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in Open Court
on 23.10.2019. Swayam Siddha Tripathy
CJ/EAST/23.10.2019
Digitally signed
by SWAYAM
SIDDHA
SWAYAM TRIPATHY
Location:
SIDDHA Karkardooma
TRIPATHY Courts, Delhi
Date:
2019.10.23
17:11:01 +0530
Page 8 of 8