Delhi District Court
Suit No.791/17 State Bank Of India vs . Raj Kumar on 26 September, 2018
Suit no.791/17 State Bank of India vs. Raj Kumar
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUNEESH GARG, CIVIL JUDGE
(EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Suit No.:791/17
In the matter of--
State Bank of India,
A corporation Constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955
Having its central office/corporate centre at State Bank Bhavan,
Madam Cama Road, Mumbai440024, Local head office at 11,
Parliament Street, New Delhi, various branches throughout Delhi
including one at Geeta Colony, Delhi at also (RASMEC) (East)
situated at Aggarwal Fun City Mall, First Floor, Karkardooma, Delhi
110032
Through its Chief Manager Mr. Vijay Pal Singh
.......PLAINTIFF
versus
Raj Kumar
s/o Sh. Guru Dutt
r/o H. No. 17/48, Block17,
Near Community Centre,
Geeta Colony, Delhi110031
......DEFENDANT
Date of Institution of suit:25.10.2017
Date of reservation of judgment: 26.09.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgment: 26.09.2018
Page No.1/7
Suit no.791/17 State Bank of India vs. Raj Kumar
EXPARTE JUDGMENT:
1.This is a suit of recovery for a sum of Rs.2,97,620/ with all cost and interest thereon. The present suit was filed on 03.10.2017.
2. In brief, it is the case of the plaintiff that the Plaintiff is a body corporate with perpetual succession and it can sue and be sued in its own name. It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff had given a car loan to the defendant for purchase of Maruti Swift Dzire Car bearing no. DL1YD4797 for a sum of Rs. 4,90,000/ on 11.06.2013. The loan was to be repaid in 55 equated monthly installments for a sum of Rs. 11,885/ each.
3. After the disbursement of the said loan, a loan account was opened by the plaintiff in the name of the defendant with the Geeta Colony Branch, Delhi of the plaintiff Bank. It is the case of the Plaintiff that after availing the loan facility, the defendant defaulted in payment of monthly installments and paid Rs. 32,000/ for the last time in his account on 30.06.2016.
4. It is claimed by the plaintiff that, on persistent defaults, plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 20.08.2017 but the defendant did not pay heed to the same. Hence, plaintiff bank filed the present suit seeking recovery of aforesaid amount.
5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is liable to repay the balance outstanding as per the books of accounts with cost and interest being borrower of the said loan.
Page No.2/7Suit no.791/17 State Bank of India vs. Raj Kumar
6. After service of summons, defendant appeared in the Court and sought time to make the payment. However, no written statement was filed by the defendant. Thereafter, defendant stopped appearing in the court. Accordingly, defendant was proceeded exparte on 28.07.2018.
7. Thereafter, in support of the claim in the suit, the plaintiff Bank has produced one Sudhir Kumar Dwivedi as PW1 who is working as Manager with the plaintiff and is posted at State Bank of India, RASMEC, Aggarwal Fun City Mall, 1 st Floor, Karkardooma, Delhi. He has placed on record his testimony by way of affidavit in evidence Ex. PW1/A. He has also proved on record the following documents:
Mark F Certified true copy of gazette
notification
Ex. PW1/2 Original proforma invoice
Ex. PW1/3 Loan application form
Ex. PW1/4 SME1, Letter of arrangement dated
11.06.2013
Ex. PW1/5 SME2, loan cum hypothecation
agreement dated 11.06.2013
Ex. PW1/6 Annexure SME2A
Ex. PW1/7 Legal notice
Ex. PW1/8 Postal receipts
Ex. PW1/9 Courier receipt
Page No.3/7
Suit no.791/17 State Bank of India vs. Raj Kumar
Ex. PW1/10 Original AD card
Ex. PW1/11 (colly) Statement of account
Ex. PW1/12 Certificate of accrued interest
Ex. PW1/13 Certificate under Section 65B of
Indian Evidence Act
Mark A Copy of RC of hypothecation
vehicle
Mark B Copy of insurance
Mark C Copy of PAN card
Mark D Copy of aadhar card
Mark E Copy of electricity bill
8. Evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 30.08.2018.
9. Final arguments are heard. Record is perused.
10.The Plaintiff bank is corporate body with perpetual succession and it can sue and be sued in its own name. The present suit has been duly instituted by an authorized person in view of the documents placed on record.
11.As per the plaintiff, vide agreement dated 11.06.2013 Ex. PW 1/5, SwiftDzire Car loan for a sum of Rs. 4,90,000/ was taken by the Defendant. The same was to be returned in equated monthly installment of Rs. 11,885/ each. The said facts have been stated on oath by PW1 in Ex. PW1/A. Page No.4/7 Suit no.791/17 State Bank of India vs. Raj Kumar
12.It is pertinent to note that the Defendant in this matter is ex parte and thus the statement of PW1 to the said effect has gone unrebutted. Again, the veracity of the said documents has also not been questioned. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the witness or the documents brought on record. The letter of arrangement Ex. PW1/4 and loancumhypothecation agreement Ex. PW1/5 has been duly proved on record as per which the defendant took the said loan amount.
13.The Plaintiff has further brought on record its statement of account maintained by the Plaintiff Bank in the usual course of business being Ex. PW1/11. As per the said statement, the Defendant has an outstanding of Rs. 2,97,620/ including accrued interest till 31.08.2017. The Defendant is exparte. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the said statement of account placed on record by the plaintiff. The present suit is filed within the period of limitation as defendant made the last payment on 30.06.2016.
14.The present suit is based on the outstanding duly reflected in the statement of accounts maintained by the Plaintiff in the usual course of their business. The same reflects an outstanding of Rs. 2,51,719/ and accrued interest of Rs. 45,901/ till 31/08/2017. The present suit has been filed for the said amount i.e. Rs. 2,97,620/ with interest at the rate of 12.35% p.a. with monthly interest till payment. The said Ex. PW1/11 is accompanied with a certificate in terms of section 2(A) (B) of the Bankers Books Evidence Act wherein the Manager in Page No.5/7 Suit no.791/17 State Bank of India vs. Raj Kumar charge of the computer system of the Plaintiff bank has certified that the data maintained by the Plaintiff bank has been stored correctly without any possibility of loss and that only authorized persons can access the same. He has also issued certificate to the effect that data is stored in the custody of fire proof devices. Nothing has come on record to disbelieve the said certificate and therefore the computer generated statement Ex. PW1/11 has been duly proved on record.
15.As per the said statement of account Ex. PW1/11, there is an outstanding amount of Rs. 2,97,620/ which is due and payable by the Defendant.
16.Plaintiff has also proved on record the legal notice dated 30.08.2017 Ex. PW1/7 sent to the Defendant. It has come in the evidence of the PW1 that despite service of the said legal notice, the Defendant has failed to pay the amount claimed in the present suit.
17.In view of the documents proved on record including the Loan cumHypothecation Agreement Ex. PW1/5, letter of arrangement dated Ex. PW1/4, and statement of A/c Ex. PW 1/11, I find that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 2,97,620/ from the Defendant. It is ordered accordingly.
18.On the question of interest, since the Plaintiff has been able to prove that it is entitled to the aforesaid sum of Rs. 2,97,620/, I also find that the Plaintiff is entitled to interest. Plaintiff has claimed pendentelite and future interest @ of 12.35% per annum with monthly interest till payment and/or realisation. In Page No.6/7 Suit no.791/17 State Bank of India vs. Raj Kumar my opinion, considering the relationship between parties, ends of justice shall be served in case simple interest @ 9% p.a. is awarded from the date of filing of this suit till its realization on the aforesaid sum of Rs. 2,97,620//. Thus, the Plaintiff is awarded simple interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to be calculated on the sum of Rs. 2,97,620// from the date of filing of this suit i.e. 03.10.2017 till realization.
19.Plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs of the suit. The present suit is decreed with interest in aforesaid terms. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Judgment dictated directly and announced in Open Court on 26.09.2018 Muneesh Garg CJ/East/Karkardooma 26.09.2018 Digitally signed by MUNEESH GARG MUNEESH Location:
Karkardooma GARG Courts, Delhi
Date:
2018.09.26
15:22:00 +0530
Page No.7/7