Delhi District Court
D.S.F.D.C vs Sunil Kumar Ors on 19 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. DIVYA MALHOTRA : SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE CUM RENT CONTROLLER : NORTH DISTRICT :
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
Delhi SC/ST/OBC Minorities & Handicapped
Financial & Development Corporation Ltd.
Ambedkar Bhawan Institutional Area,
Sector - 16, Rohini, Delhi - 110085.
Through its Authorized Representative
Kishan Kumar, UDC. .....Plaintiff
Versus
1.Sunil Kumar S/o Narain Dass R/o 6/392, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi - 110062.
2. Suresh Babu (suit dismissed vide order dated 06.09.2016) S/o Moti Lal R/o 1662, Sector - 3, Block - 20, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi - 110017.
3. Mangat Ram (suit dismissed vide order dated 06.09.2016) S/o Mehar Chand R/o H - 104, Harkesh Nagar, New Delhi - 110020. .....Defendants E X PAR T E J U D G M E N T CNR No. DLNT 0300 0495 2015 Case No. 36006/16 Suit for Recovery of Under Section Rs. 69,071/-
Date of Institution 02.03.2015 Date of Reserving Order 15.04.2025 Date of Final Order 19.05.2025 Final Order Suit Decreed.
__________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 36006/16 DSFDC Vs Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 1 of 8 Present suit is filed by plaintiff financial institution for recovery of dues against loan provided to defendant no. 1.
PLAINT
1. Plaintiff is a Finance Corporation engaged in providing financial assistance to persons in need, particularly to minority groups and has filed the present suit through its Authorized Representative Kishan Kumar, later on substituted by Mr. Mam Chand authorized vide authorization letter Ex. PW1/1. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant no. 1 approached the corporation and applied for loan of Rs. 70,200/- vide request letter dated 21.01.1998, diarized on 28.01.1998 vide Ex. PW1/2. The request was allowed and a loan of Rs. 1,02,900/- was sanctioned to him as per the terms stated in the sanction letter dated 21.12.1998 (written as 22.04.1999 in plaint) Ex. PW1/3. Defendants no. 2 & 3 stood as guarantors of defendant no. 1 for repayment of the loan.
1.1 Loan was duly disbursed to defendant no. 1 against which he also executed a hypothecation deed Ex. PW1/4 and a bond of guarantee was executed by defendants no. 2 & 3 as Ex. PW1/5. The loan was to be repaid by way of 61 monthly installments in 5 years. It is stated the portion of loan disbursed by NSFDC (National Scheduled Castes Finance and Development Corporation) carried 6% per annum interest and the portion of loan disbursed by DSFDC (Delhi Scheduled Castes Finance and Development Corporation) carried 4% __________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 36006/16 DSFDC Vs Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 2 of 8 per annum interest. Defendant no. 1 paid some installments, with last payment being made on 20.07.2007. Afterwards, he stopped making payments whereby, as per statement of account, a sum of Rs. 69,071/- became outstanding against him as on 30.11.2014.
1.2 Several legal notices Ex. PW1/7 were issued upon defendant no.1 in this regard and same were acknowledged by him vide letters Ex. PW1/8 despite which he did not clear the outstanding liability. Hence, the present suit for recovery of Rs. 69,071/- alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 12% per annum has been filed.
1.3 The suit amount, as per statement of account initially filed, has been arrived at in the following manner:
. Rs. 56,575/- being the amount outstanding after incorporating agreed rate of interest (6% per annum on loan amount advanced by NSFDC and 4% per annum on the amount advanced by DSFDC) ;
. Rs. 5,018 being penal interest;
. Rs. 1,500/- as legal expense;
. Rs. 2,978 as Court Fee and
. Rs. 3,000- being Advocate Fee.
Total = Rs. 69,071/-
WRITTEN STATEMENT
2. Defendant no. 1 is the main contesting party being the actual borrower and he is the only one who has filed the Written __________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 36006/16 DSFDC Vs Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 3 of 8 Statement in the case. The suit qua the guarantors i.e. defendants no. 2 & 3 was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 06.09.2016.
2.1 Defendant no. 1 admitted the receipt of loan of Rs. 1,02,900/- under SCD Scheme and stated that same was availed for purchase of photocopy machine for earning livelihood. He stated that he had been regularly paying the installments to the plaintiff till 2002; that he had cleared Rs. 87,374/- through cash as well as cheque till 2007; that due to breakdown of the photocopy machine, he could not make timely payments and pay the remaining installments; that only an amount of Rs. 15,526/- was outstanding against him; that vide letter dated 09.11.2009, plaintiff had earlier issued a demand notice of Rs. 23,743/- but later on enhanced the same to Rs. 69,071/- in an arbitrary manner and that his liability was only to the extent of Rs. 15,526/- and not as per the amount claimed by the plaintiff.
In support, he relied upon copies of some receipts as well as his passbook statement.
REPLICATION
3. Replication is reiteration of the contents of the plaint and denial of the contents of the Written Statement.
ISSUES
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issued were framed vide order dated 06.09.2016 :-
__________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 36006/16 DSFDC Vs Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 4 of 8
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the suit amount from defendant no. 1? OPP.
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest on the suit amount from defendant no. 1? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP 4.1 On 17.05.2017, parties arrived at a settlement for a total sum of Rs. 25,000/-in the Court and pursuant thereto, defendant no. 1 paid some EMIs in Court towards the same as well but having failed to pay the remaining installments, the settlement eventually collapsed and matter was proceed on merits.
TRIAL
5. Defendant no. 1 stopped appearing at the stage of trial whereby he was proceeded exparte vide order dated 11.09.2023. He remained exparte thereafter.
6. PW1/Mam Chand/AR of the plaintiff examined himself vide affidavit Ex. PW1/1 wherein he reiterated the contents of the plaint and relied upon the following documents :-
S. No. Description of documents Exhibit Nos. 1 Copy of authorization Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) 2 Loan application dated 28.01.1998 Ex. PW1/2 (OSR) 3 Loan sanction letter dated 22.04.1998 Ex. PW1/3 (OSR) 4 Hypothecation deed executed by Ex. PW1/4 (OSR) __________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 36006/16 DSFDC Vs Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 5 of 8 defendant no. 1 5 Bond of guarantee Ex. PW1/5 (OSR) 6 Statement of account and certificate Ex. PW1/6 (colly) under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act 7 Letters/Notices Ex. PW1/7 (colly) (OSR) 8 Acknowledgment letters of defendant Ex. PW1/8 (colly) (OSR) no. 1 6.1 The witness was not cross-examined as defendant no. 1 remained exparte during trial. No other witness was examined and PE stood closed on 18.11.2023.
Heard. Perused.
FINDINGS Issue No. (i) :- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the suit amount from defendant no. 1? OPP.
& Issue No. 2 (ii):-Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest on the suit amount from defendant no. 1? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
7. The onus to prove these issues was upon the plaintiff.
It is the admitted position between the parties that plaintiff disbursed a loan of Rs. 1,02,900/- to defendant no. 1 vide sanction letter Ex. PW1/3. As per the plaintiff, the loan amount was to __________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 36006/16 DSFDC Vs Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 6 of 8 be repaid in 61 monthly installments in 5 years but defendant no. 1 failed to abide by the schedule of repayment. It is averred that as per the statement of account, the last payment was made by defendant no. 1 on 20.07.2007 and that thereafter he stopped making the payments. However, during the course of the proceedings, defendant no. 1 made further payments and the revised statement of account Ex. PW1/6 incorporating such payments, as per which an amount of Rs. 52,970/- including interest has become outstanding against defendant no. 1 as on 25.07.2019, was filed and tendered in evidence.
7.1 AR of the plaintiff/ PW1 duly proved the case of the plaintiff to the above effect. His testimony remained uncontroverted and unrebutted in the absence of any cross-examination by defendant no. 1. Though defendant no. 1 alleged repayment to the extent of Rs. 87,374/- out of the total loan amount, he never entered the witness box to prove the same. Once the receipt of loan was admitted by defendant no.1, the onus was upon him to prove repayments to the extent alleged by him, which he failed to do. Thus, defendant no. 1 failed to prove his defence.
7.2 On the other hand, the unrebutted testimony of PW1 is duly corroborated by the plethora of documents filed by him on record including the statement of account Ex. PW1/6 maintained by the plaintiff in its regular course of business. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the same. The unrebutted testimony therefore stands proved.
__________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 36006/16 DSFDC Vs Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 7 of 8 7.3 After adjusting the payments made by defendant no. 1 during the proceedings, plaintiff is held entitled to recovery of 52,970/- which is shown to be due against defendant no.1 as on 25.07.2019, after incorporating interest. Plaintiff is also held entitled to interest @ 8% per annum on the sum adjudged above w.e.f. 26.07.2019 till its actual realization, as interest prior to that has already been incorporated in the revised account statement Ex. PW1/6. The penal interest shown at the foot of the account statement is however declined being against public policy.
Both the issues are accordingly decided in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant no. 1.
RELIEF
8. For the reasons assigned herein-above, plaintiff has successfully proved its case.
A decree of recovery of Rs. 52,970/- alongwith interest @ 8% per annum w.e.f. 26.07.2019 till its actual realization is passed in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant no. 1.
Costs of the suit are also awarded in favor of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court.
(Divya Malhotra) SCJ/RC/North/Rohini Court 19.05.2025 __________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 36006/16 DSFDC Vs Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 8 of 8 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Date:
2025.05.23 15:46:59 +0530