Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Sh. Vinay Kakkar on 18 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMARI, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE12, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI Suit No.454/16 CSDJ No.616609/16 State Bank of India, a Corporation constituted under The State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Corporate Center at State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai400024. Having its Local Head Office at, 11, Sansad Marg, New Delhi110001 Having its Branch at ISBT, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi and also RACPC situated at A5, Pearl Best Height1, Netaji Subhash Palance, New Delhi through Chief Manager Mr. Ashok Kumar Fotedar .... Plaintiff. Versus Sh. Vinay Kakkar, S/o Sh. Naresh Kumar Kakkar R/o 124125, IInd Floor, BlockA, Pocket1, Sector6, Rohini, Delhi 110085. SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.8,07,685/. Date of Institution : 16.05.2016 Date of reserving Judgment : 18.09.2018 Date of pronouncement : 18.09.2018 CS No.616609/16 State Bank of India Vs. Vinay Kakkar Page No. 1 of 7 JUDGMENT
1. This Judgment shall dispose of the suit for recovery of Rs.8,07,685/ along with interest, filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is a corporate body constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and the present suit has been filed by Sh. Ashok Kumar Fotedar, Chief Manager in State Bank of India, RACPC who has been duly authorized to file the present suit under General Regulation of State Bank of India General Regulations, 1955.
On reorganization of set up of the State Bank of India, RACPC has been established by the plaintiff bank to deal exclusively with the Non Performing Asset (NPA) accounts of the branches of plaintiff bank situated within Delhi for recovery of the amounts due against the borrowers. NPA accounts of the branches throughout Delhi have been transferred to RACPC situated at A5 Pearl Best Height1, Netaji Subhash Palace, New Delhi.
It is further stated that the defendant applied for a loan of Rs.10,20,000/ to the plaintiff bank for the purchase of a car namely "Honda City" and the plaintiff bank sanctioned the said loan on CS No.616609/16 State Bank of India Vs. Vinay Kakkar Page No. 2 of 7 04.07.2013 on interest @ 10.45% per annum with monthly rest subject to rise and fall time to time as per banking guidelines vide car loan account No.33103128465. The said amount was to be repaid in 84 equated monthly installments (EMI) of Rs.17,171/ each. The defendant executed Car loan application, appraisalcumcontrol report, arrangement letter dated 04.07.2013, loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 04.7.2013, vehicle delivery letter, AnnexureI, Annexure Car VIII, undertaking and standing instructions in favour of the plaintiff bank. Thereafter, the defendant purchased the said car/ vehicle. The said loan was secured by hypothecation of the vehicle in favour of plaintiff bank.
It is further stated that the defendant has committed regular defaults in repayment of loan amount and the defendant failed to improve his account position and in this regard several reminders have also been sent to the defendant. It is stated that plaintiff issued notice dated 25.4.2016 to the defendant in accordance with the law and called upon the defendant to repay the entire outstanding amount and return the vehicle which is hypothecated to the bank under the agreement but defendant failed to comply with the same.
In terms of the loan documents executed by the defendant, CS No.616609/16 State Bank of India Vs. Vinay Kakkar Page No. 3 of 7 the defendant is liable to pay Rs.8,07,685/ towards principal amount, interest and other charges as on the date of filing of the suit. The defendant has not paid the said amount. Hence, the present suit.
3. Summons of the suit were sent to the defendant but despite being duly served through publication, the defendant failed to appear and was therefore, proceeded exparte vide order dated 11.04.2017. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for exparte evidence.
4. The plaintiff led exparte evidence and examined only Ms.Jaya Kumari, its Manager as PW1. In her testimony by way of affidavit, Ex.PW1/A, PW1 reiterated almost the same contents as stated in the plaint and placed on record the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/16 and Mark A to Mark C.
5. I have heard the final arguments advanced by Sh.Vijay Prakash, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff and I have carefully gone through the case file.
6. Though the defendant is exparte but despite this, onus is upon the plaintiff to prove that the defendant has taken a loan of Rs.10,20,000/ which was to be repaid in 84 EMIs and defendant has CS No.616609/16 State Bank of India Vs. Vinay Kakkar Page No. 4 of 7 defaulted in payment of the EMIs as per the schedule and even did not pay the said amount despite sending legal notice. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount. In order to prove its case, plaintiff bank has examined Ms.Jaya Kumari, its Manager as PW1 who has almost deposed the same contents as stated in the plaint through her affidavit, Ex.PW1/A, hence, same are not repeated here. She has also proved the following documents :
1. True copy of Gazette notification dated 27.3.1987 as Ex.PW1/1.
2. Car loan application as Ex.PW1/2.
3. Appraisal cum control report as Ex.PW1/3.
4. Arrangement letter dated 04.7.2013 as Ex.PW1/4.
5. Loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 04.7.2013 as Ex.PW1/5.
6. Vehicle delivery letter as Ex.PW1/6.
7. AnnexureI as Ex. PW1/7.
8. Annexure Car VIII as Ex.PW1/8.
9. Undertaking as Ex.PW1/9.
10. Standing instructions as Ex.PW1/10.
11. Legal notice as Ex.PW1/11, its postal receipts as Ex.PW1/12 (Colly) and courier receipts as Ex.PW1/13 (Colly).
12. Statement of account duly certified under Banker's Books CS No.616609/16 State Bank of India Vs. Vinay Kakkar Page No. 5 of 7 Evidence Act as Ex. PW1/14 (Colly).
13. Certificate of accrued interest as Ex. PW1/15.
14. Certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/16.
15. Photocopy of vehicle retail invoice as Mark A.
16. Copy of RC of vehicle as Mark B.
17. Copy of PAN of defendant as Mark C.
7. Since, the defendant has chosen not to appear and challenge the suit of the plaintiff, the evidence led by the plaintiff has remained unchallenged, uncontroverted and unrebutted. Therefore, there is no ground to disbelieve the testimony of PW1. From the testimony of PW1 and documents relied upon by the plaintiff, it is proved that the plaintiff granted a loan of Rs. 10,20,000/ for purchase of the car which was required to be repaid by way of 84 EMIs of Rs. 17,171/ each. The defendant failed to repay the loan as per the schedule of payment and thus an amount of Rs.7,87,876.20 was due on 22.4.2016, therefore the plaintiff recalled the loan agreement vide notice dated 25.4.2016, Ex. PW1/11 demanding the above said amount through speed post Ex.PW1/12 and courier Ex.PW1/13, despite this, the defendant did not pay the said amount. From the statement of account, Ex. PW1/14, the plaintiff bank had charged interest only upto CS No.616609/16 State Bank of India Vs. Vinay Kakkar Page No. 6 of 7 31.3.2016. Hence, the defendant is also liable to pay interest after 31.3.2016 which according to the plaintiff is Rs.17,727/ till 22.04.2016 and Rs.2,082/ as arrears penalty. Hence, an amount of Rs.8,07,685/ was due on the date of filing of suit towards the defendant. The last payment/EMI was paid on 06.02.2016, hence suit is within limitation. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I held that defendant is liable to pay Rs.8,07,685/ to the plaintiff with interest @ 10.45% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and then, till its realization.
RELIEF
8. In view of above, I pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.8,07,685/ along with interest @ 10.45% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and then, till its realization. Plaintiff is also held entitled to the costs of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court (Sanjeev KumarI)
on 18.09.2018 Addl. District Judge12 (Central)
Digitally signed Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
by SANJEEV
SANJEEV KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2018.09.18
16:44:13 +0530
CS No.616609/16 State Bank of India Vs. Vinay Kakkar Page No. 7 of 7