Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Shri Jai Saran on 21 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANDEEP GARG,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE- 01,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS No. 731/18
State Bank of India,
A Corporation constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, having its
General Office/Corporate Centre at State Bank Bhavan, Madame Cama Road,
Mumbai 440024, one of its Local Head Office at 11, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-
110001, one of its branch at Gole Market, New Delhi and also RACPC 11,
Parliament Street, New Delhi, through its Manager
......Plaintiff
Versus
Shri Jai Saran
S/o Sh. Purshottam Lal
R/o F-2/246, Block-F,
Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi-110085
Also at :
H. No. 72, Block-A-3,
Ground Floor, Sector-4
Rohini, Delhi-110085
...... Defendant
Suit presented on : 25.07.2018
Arguments concluded on : 21.11.2019
Judgment pronounced on : 21.11.2019
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1.The present suit for recovery of Rs. 4,84,198/- along with interest and costs has been filed by the plaintiff Bank averring that plaintiff is a Corporate body constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Corporate office registered at Madame Cama Road, Mumbai and branch offices located all over India. It is a body with perpetual succession and it can sue and be sued in its own name. It is engaged in the business of banking. It has various local head CS No. 731/18 Page no. 1 of 5 State Bank of India vs. Jai Saran offices including one at New Delhi and has various branch offices throughout India and a centralized Recovery Center called Stressed Assets Recovery Center at RACPC, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001 which is under the administrative control of the Local Head office at New Delhi. The present suit has been filed on behalf of plaintiff statutory corporation through its official representative Ms. Jaya Kumari, Manager, State Bank of India, RACPC, First Floor, 11, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001
2. The defendant being borrower had approached the Gole Market, New Delhi branch of plaintiff bank for availing a vehicle loan for Rs. 4,50,000/- for purchasing Chevrolet Beat vehicle, bearing chassis No. MA6BFBBNDCT 055513 vide loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 17.04.2013. Considering of above loan facility, plaintiff agreed to grant vehicle loan and loan account no. 32936259942 was opened.
3. It is averred that the defendant furnished loan application form, loan-cum-hypothecation agreement, vehicle delivery letter, annexure-I and aanexure-car-VIII and considering the same, plaintiff bank sanctioned a vehicle loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- on 17.04.2013. The said loan was repayable with floating rate of interest @ 10.45 % p.a subject to rise and fall time to time as per banking guidelines. The said loan was repayable in 84 EMIs of Rs. 7,576/- each and in the event of default or any irregularity in loan, bank has the right to levy higher rate of interest.
4. The vehicle in question was hypothecated with plaintiff as security for the repayment of the loan together with interest at the rate stipulated above and together with costs, charges etc for which the defendants created first charge by way of hypothecation of the said vehicle, which is duly noted in the registration certificate with concerned RTO and till the repayment of entire loan amount, the defendant is prohibited from creating any charge or encumbrance CS No. 731/18 Page no. 2 of 5 State Bank of India vs. Jai Saran on the hypothecated vehicle nor shall they dispose of the same without repayment the total loan amount along with interest.
5. Defendant miserably failed to maintain the financial discipline as they did not pay the installments regularly, whereby his account with the plaintiff bank became irregular and sticky. The officers of the plaintiff bank had been contacting the defendant time and again to impress upon them to regularize the account, but to no effect. Due to said continuous and persistent default, the said loan account was categorized as NPA on 30.09.2015 as per RBI guidelines.
6. Despite of personal visits and telephonic reminders, defendant failed to pay the outstanding resulting into irregularities in the loan account which shows the malafide intention of the defendant of not to pay the genuine and legally recoverable dues of the bank. Hence, the plaintiff bank was constrained to give legal notice dated 09.05.2018 which was duly served, but neither complied, nor heeded to.
7. The defendant is liable to pay the outstanding amounts as per the details mentioned below:-
i) Outstanding including interest Rs. 3,66,486.86
ii) Accrued interest but not applied in the loan Rs. 1,14,579.17 account of the defendant till 30.06.2018 Misc. Debits Rs. 3,132/-
Total Rs. 4,84,197.63
Balance outstanding rounded off Rs. 4,84,198/-
The defendant had made part payments in the years 2013, 2014 & 2015. The last payment of Rs. 7638/- was deposited by the defendant on 10.09.2015 by transfer, thereby, extending the period of limitation for filing the present suit. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to institute the present suit.
CS No. 731/18 Page no. 3 of 5 State Bank of India vs. Jai Saran
8. Upon filing of the present suit, summons for settlement of issues were issued to the defendant. However, the defendant could not be served in the ordinary manner. Therefore, the defendant was served by substituted service by way of publication in the daily newspaper 'The Statesman' dated 14.09.2019. Despite service, no one appeared on behalf of the defendant and he was proceeded ex-parte.
9. In order to substantiate its case, the plaintiff has examined its AR Sh. Rajeev Jain, Deputy Manager as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit and reiterated the facts averred in the plaint. He has placed reliance on the following documents:
a. Certified true copy of gazette notification as Ex. PW1/1. b. Proforma invoice of proposed vehicle as Ex. PW1/2. c. Loan Application Form as Ex. PW1/3. d. Loan-cum-hypothecation agreement dated 17.04.2013 as Ex. PW1/4.
e. Vehicle delivery letter as Ex. PW1/5 f. Annexure-1 as Ex. PW1/6 g. Annexure car viii as Ex. PW1/7 h. Legal notice dated 9.5.2018 as Ex. PW1/8 i. Postal receipt as Ex. PW1/9 j. Courier receipts as Ex. PW1/10 k. Statement of account duly certified as per Bankers Books Evidence Act as Ex. PW1/11 l. Certificate of accrued interest as Ex. PW1/12. m. Certificate u/s 65-B of indian Evidence Act, 1872 as Ex.PW1/13
n. Photocopy of Election ID of defendant as Mark A and PAN Card of defendant as Mark B. CS No. 731/18 Page no. 4 of 5 State Bank of India vs. Jai Saran
10. The Court has heard Sh. Prashant Bhrigu, Ld. proxy counsel for the plaintiff and has gone through the record with his assistance.
11. The testimony of PW-1 has remained un-rebutted and un-
controverted. The plaintiff has proved Loan Application Form, Loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 17.04.2013, Vehicle delivery letter, legal notice dated 09.05.2018 & statement of account duly certified under the Banker's Books Evidence Act. Therefore, the case of the plaintiff is based on and is substantiated by documentary evidence. The loan was maintained and followed up by RACPC, Sansad Marg, New Delhi which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this court.
12. In view of the un-rebutted and un-controverted evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the Court holds that it has been successful in substantiating its case against the defendant and the plaintiff is held entitled to recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,84,198/- along with interest at the agreed rate of 10.45 % p.a. with monthly rests, from the defendant w.e.f. 01.07.2018 till the date of its realization. Costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Court (Sandeep Garg)
on 21.11.2019 Additional District Judge-01,
New Delhi District,
Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi
CS No. 731/18 Page no. 5 of 5
State Bank of India vs. Jai Saran