Delhi District Court
Office At Mangalore vs Sh.T.T. Murli Narayanan on 9 December, 2014
IN THE COURT OF JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH, CIVIL JUDGE,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RBT No.96/13
Corporation Bank
LIC Card Centre, Delhi.
A body corporate constituted
under the Banking Companies
(Acquisition and Transfer of
Undertakings) Act, 1980 (Act
no.3 of 1980) having its Head
Office at Mangalore, Karnataka
and Having its branch at :
Corporation Bank, LIC Card Centre,
16/10, FF, Main Arya Samaj Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005. ......Plaintiff
Versus
Sh.T.T. Murli Narayanan
S/o Sh. Thirumudi Thirunavukkarasu
R/o Old no.18, New no.14,
Saidai Sambandam Street,
West Mambalam, Chennai,
Tamilnadu - 600033. ......Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.1,72,714.66/ ALONG WITH
PENDENTELITE AND FUTURE INTEREST @ 2.5% PER MONTH
Date of Institution : 06.06.2013
Date of reserving Judgment : 25.11.2014
Date of pronouncement : 09.12.2014
Suit no.96/14 Corporation Bank Vs. T.T. Murali Narayanan Page No. 1 of 7
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
This Judgment shall dispose the suit of the plaintiff filed
against the defendants praying for a decree of recovery of
Rs.1,72,714.66/ along with pendente lite and future interest @ 2.5%
per month.
2. Brief facts necessary for deciding the present suit are as
follows: The plaintiff is a body corporate constituted and functioning
under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of
Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at Mangalore,
Karnataka and having its branch at Corporation Bank, LIC Card Centre,
16/10, FF, Main Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005. The
present suit has been filed by Sh. A.V. Ambastha, Chief Manager and
Attorney of the Plaintiff bank duly authorized in this regard.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the LIC Card is issued by
LIC Cards Services Ltd. in association with the Corporation Bank. The
LIC Card account is maintained by the Corporation Bank and the LIC
Card is distributed and marketed by LIC Cards Services Ltd.. The
Suit no.96/14 Corporation Bank Vs. T.T. Murali Narayanan Page No. 2 of 7
defendant approached the plaintiff and applied for grant of LIC Credit
Card facility. In pursuance of the same, the plaintiff bank had
sanctioned and issued an LIC credit card bearing
No.4628470004137005 with a limit of Rs.80,000/ on 01.12.2009. The
defendant utilized the said credit card for making purchases and
withdrawing cash from ATMs but he failed to make the payment against
the bills raised. The account of the defendant was classified as a Non
Performing Asset (NPA) on 07.09.2010. A legal notice dated
20.02.2013was issued to the defendant demanding the outstanding amount. As on 20.02.2013, a debit balance of Rs.1,55,830.35/ was due in accounts of the plaintiff from the defendant. However, when the payment was not made even after receiving the notice, the instant suit was filed to recover the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,72,714.66/ and interest thereon.
4. Originally the suit was filed under the provisions of Order 37 of the CPC. However, vide order dated 06.12.2013, it was directed to be treated as an ordinary suit.
5. The acknowledgment due (AD) card sent along with the Suit no.96/14 Corporation Bank Vs. T.T. Murali Narayanan Page No. 3 of 7 summons of the suit by way of registered cover was received back by this court an accordingly it was deemed that the defendant was served with the summons of the suit. Despite that none had appeared for the defendant to contest the suit and he was accordingly proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.02.2014. The matter was then fixed for ex parte plaintiff evidence.
6. In its evidence the plaintiff bank examined Sh. Ashwin Tirkey, Authorized Representative of the plaintiff bank as PW1 who in his evidence by way of affidavit reiterated most of the averments as made in the plaint. The said PW1 relied upon and produced on record the following documents:
1) Power of Attorney in favour of PW1 as Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).
2) Copy of Agreement dated 30.03.2009 executed between the plaintiff and the LIC Card Services Ltd as Ex.PW1/2 (OSR)
3) Original Credit Card Application Form along with supporting documents as Ex.PW1/3 (colly)
4) Photocopy of most important terms & conditions as Mark PW1/4 Suit no.96/14 Corporation Bank Vs. T.T. Murali Narayanan Page No. 4 of 7
5) Original computer generated screen shot providing the details of the defendant as Ex.PW1/5.
6) Office copy of legal notice as Ex.PW1/6 (colly).
7) Computer generated statement of account as Ex.PW1/7 (colly).
8) The copy of Agreement executed between the plaintiff and M/s Opus Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd. as Ex.PW1/8 (OSR).
7. Thereafter the ex parte plaintiff evidence was closed and the matter was listed for ex parte final arguments.
8. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and have perused the case file.
9. In the present case the defendant despite been served with the summons of the suit, has chosen not to contest the suit and in this scenario the case of the plaintiff remains unrebutted and non challenged and this court finds no reason to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff.
10. A perusal of the statement of account Ex.PW1/7 reveals Suit no.96/14 Corporation Bank Vs. T.T. Murali Narayanan Page No. 5 of 7 that the defendant had an outstanding due of Rs.1,58,572/ as per the statement dated 26.03.2013 which records the cash payments of Rs.10,000/ made by the defendant on 20.03.2013. Thereafter, neither any usage nor any payment was made.
11. This court is of an opinion that the defendant was aware of the outstanding dues towards the plaintiff. However, he has chosen to pay the partial amount only. He has also not raised any objection to the claim raised in the aforesaid credit card statement. Accordingly this Court is of a view that the defendant is liable to pay the aforesaid sum of Rs.1,58,572/ as disclosed in the statement dated 26.03.2013 to the plaintiff.
12. The plaintiff has claimed an interest at the rate of 2.5% per month on the aforesaid amount. In the opinion of the court, the rate of interest at 2.5% per month is exorbitant and moreover, there is no document on record to show that the defendant had agreed for the said rate of interest or that the plaintiff is entitled to the said punitive rate of interest.
Suit no.96/14 Corporation Bank Vs. T.T. Murali Narayanan Page No. 6 of 7
13. Accordingly, this court decrees the suit of the plaintiff holding the plaintiff entitled to the recovery of the principal amount of Rs.1,58,572/. The court declines the interest at the rate of 2.5% per month which, as noted above, is extremely high. In the circumstances of the case, this court is of an opinion that an interest at the rate of 9% per annum calculated on the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,58,572/ from the date of filing of the suit till the recovery of the said amount shall suffice to meet the ends of the justice. The plaintiff is held entitled for the said rate of interest. The plaintiff is also held entitled to the costs of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The suit of the plaintiff is disposed off in aforesaid terms. File be consigned to the Record Room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court (Jitendra Pratap Singh) on 09.12.2014. Civil Judge, Central 09 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (This Judgment consists of 7 pages and all the pages are duly signed by me.) Suit no.96/14 Corporation Bank Vs. T.T. Murali Narayanan Page No. 7 of 7 Suit no.96/13 09.12.2014 Present : None.
Vide separate Judgment of even date the suit of the plaintiff is decreed along with costs of the suit. Any application pending in the case is hereby dismissed for not being pressed for. Decree sheet is directed to be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance.
(Jitendra Pratap Singh) CJ/C/DELHI/09.12.2014 Suit no.96/14 Corporation Bank Vs. T.T. Murali Narayanan Page No. 8 of 7