Delhi District Court
Unknown vs Sh. Sachin Kumar on 23 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. VINEETA GOYAL, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE 03, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Suit No. 31/2019
CNR No. DLST010015682019
In the matter of :
State Bank of India, A body corporate
constituted under the provisions of
The State Bank of India, 1955 (23 of 1955)
having its Central Office at
Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 400021 and one of its Local
Head Office (s) & Zonal Office(s)
at Parliament Street, New Delhi
and one of its Branch at Asian Games Village,
New Delhi and RACPC, South Extension,
F40, 2nd & 3rd Floor,
Ring Road, South Extension Part I,
New Delhi110049
through its Manager (SARC)
Mr. Alok Manglik ......... Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Sachin Kumar
S/o Sh. Om Prakash
H.No. 13A, Mundka,
Near Masjid Wali Gali,
Delhi 110041
Also at:
No. D8, West Railway Colony,
Old Faridabad
Haryana 121001 ........ Defendant
Suit presented on : 03.03.2019
Arguments concluded on : 27.08.2019
Judgment Pronounced on : 23.09.2019
Suit no. 31/19
State Bank of India Vs. Sachin Kumar Page no.4 of 4
Appearance : Sh. Sujeet Kumar Singh with Ms. Buli Das, counsels
for plaintiff.
Defendant exparte.
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of ₹7,34,101.70/ alongwith interest against defendant.
2. Brief facts as epitomized in the plaint are that the plaintiff bank is body corporate constituted under the provisions of The State Bank of India, 1955 (23 of 1955) having its central office at Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai400021 with one of its Local Head Office (s) & Zonal Office (s) at Parliament Street, New Delhi and one of its Branch at Asian Games Village, New Delhi and RACPC, South Extension at F40, 2nd & 3rd Floor, Ring Road, South Extension PartI, New Delhi. The present suit is being filed by Mr. Alok Manglik, Manager (SARC) of plaintiff's office at RACPC, South Extension, F40, 2 nd & 3rd Floor, Ring Road, South Extension Part I, New Delhi who is competent to institute the present suit and is well conversant with facts of the present case on the basis of records maintained by the plaintiff bank in the ordinary course of its business and is thus in a position to depose about the correctness thereof. Even otherwise, he is competent and authorized to sign and verify the pleadings, vakalatnamas, affidavits, application and executions and file the present suit as per the General regulations 76 & 77 of State Bank of India General regulations 1955.
Suit no. 31/19State Bank of India Vs. Sachin Kumar Page no.4 of 4 2.1. It is averred in the plaint that the defendant approached to the plaintiff vide loan application dated 29.01.2013 to sanction and grant of car loan of Rs.10.00 Lakhs for purchase of NEW CHEVROLET CRUZE LT MT (Engine No.720D1167579K Chasis No. MA6JFDADD6H002868) against hypothecation of said vehicle, which was repayable in 84 equal monthly installments of ₹16,861.00 per month w.e.f. March 2013 till the entire loan with interest is fully paid. The plaintiff sanctioned and granted the said term loan vide Letter of arrangement dated 29.01.2013 subject to terms and conditions envisaged therein. The plaintiff bank disbursed the aforesaid loan, which was duly availed by the defendant. The defendant executed security documents like Hypothecation Agreement dated 04.02.2013 and Letter of Authority dated 04.02.2013. The defendant submitted proforma invoice and retail invoice dated 08.02.2013 issued by M/s Arya Automobile in respect of cost of the vehicle purchased by the defendant. The loan account was subsequently transferred to RACPC South Extension, New Delhi branch and maintained entries of debits and credits by the plaintiff. The credit facility of Term loan was duly availed by the defendant however he did not care to repay the loan installments, regularly in the term loan account. The defendant failed to submit the copy of RC and to produce the vehicle for regular inspection & Insurance Certificate. The defendant did not adhere to the financial discipline and did not care to pay the amounts within stipulated time. The plaintiff made various requests and reminders to the defendant to pay the amount outstanding but he did not pay.
2.2 It is further averred that a sum of Rs.6,12,363.56 paise towards
Suit no. 31/19
State Bank of India Vs. Sachin Kumar Page no.4 of 4
principal is due and outstanding in the said account upto 01.02.2017 i.e the date of NPA. The plaintiff is also entitled to recover a sum of ₹1,21,565.63 paise from 01.04.2017 to 15.02.2019 towards interest. Thus, a total sum of ₹7,34,101.70 paise is due towards the defendant. The suit is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. On the aforesaid grounds, prayer was made that suit be decreed in favour of plaintiff bank.
3. Summons were duly served upon the defendant, however none appeared on behalf of defendant, accordingly, he was proceeded exparte vide order dt. 22.4.2019.
4. I have heard arguments advanced by ld. Counsel for plaintiff and gone through the material on record.
5. In order to substantiate its case, the plaintiff examined Sh. Alok Manglik, Manager (SARC), State Bank of India, RACPC, South Extension PartI, F40, 2nd and 3rd Floor, Ring Road, New Delhi 110049 as PW 1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He made statement in consonance with the averments made in the plaint and proved the copy of Gazette Notification dt. 27.03.1987 Ex. PW1/1, Loan application dated 29.01.2013 with copy of passport, PAN card, voter card, Aadharcard Ex. PW1/2 (colly), Sanction letter dated 04.02.2013 Ex. PW1/3, Letter of arrangement dated 04.02.2013 Ex. PW1/4, Hypothecation agreement dt. 04.02.2013 Ex. PW1/5, Standing instructions dated 04.02.2013 Mark 'A' (Ex. PW1/6 is deexhibited), Proforma invoice and retail invoice dated 08.02.2013 Ex. PW1/7 (colly), Suit no. 31/19 State Bank of India Vs. Sachin Kumar Page no.4 of 4 Copy of Certificate of insurance Mark 'B' (Ex. PW1/8 is deexhibited), Statement of accounts Ex. PW1/9, Office copies of letters dated 07.10.15, 27.10.15, 16.09.16 and 17.12.18 Ex. PW1/10 (colly), Legal notice Ex. PW1/11 and Postal receipts Ex. PW1/12 (colly).
6. It transpires from above that the suit of plaintiff bank hinges on aforesaid documents and testimony of PW1 has been duly corroborated by the documents placed on record. This witness has categorically stated that loan amount was sanctioned as per agreed terms and conditions to the defendant. The defendant failed to adhere to the financial discipline and had committed default in repayment of outstanding amount. There is no rebuttal to the aforesaid ocular as well as documents tendered in evidence. The defendant neither appeared nor raised any plea to controvert the claim of plaintiff for the reasons best known to him. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the assertion of plaintiff. The suit of the plaintiff bank is filed within limitation. In these circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff bank is decreed in its favour and against the defendant for the sum of Rs.6,12,363.56 alongwith interest @12% p.a. from 01.04.2017 to 15.02.2019. the plaintiff is also entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. on said sum from the date of filing of suit till its realization alongwith cost. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Pronounced in open Court on 23.09.2019 (Vineeta Goyal) Additional District Judge03 South District: Saket: New Delhi Suit no. 31/19 State Bank of India Vs. Sachin Kumar Page no.4 of 4