Delhi District Court
Additional District Judge 01 South ... vs Shri Rakesh Kumar Verma on 27 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. SURYA MALIK GROVER
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 01 SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS 713/17
Digitally
State Bank of India signed by
A Corporation constituted under SURYA
State Bank of India Act 1955 SURYA MALIK
MALIK GROVER
having its Central Office at
Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point GROVER Date:
2019.05.01
Mumbai - 440021, 00:17:14
and one of its Local Head Office at +0530
11, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001
one of its branch at Defence Colony
New Delhi and also recovery branch known
as RACPC, 1st Floor, F40, 2nd and 3rd Floor
Ring road, South Extension1, PartI, New Delhi
trhough its Manager L.C. Gupta
..... Plaintiff
VERSUS
Shri Rakesh Kumar Verma
S/o. Sh. Badri Prasad Verma
R/o. A24/A, DDA Flats
Near Mother Pride School
Munirka, New Delhi - 110067.
Also at :
Rakesh Kumar Verma
(ManagerCA)
Ericsson India Global Services Pvt. Ltd.
Knowledge Boulevard Tower B
4th Floor, plot no. 8A, Sector - 62
CS - 713/2017 State Bank of India Vs. Rakesh Kumar Verma pg. 1 of 7
Noida, U.P. 201301.
...... Defendant
Date of Institution : 05.05.2017
Date of Reserving judgment : 27.04.2019
Date of Judgment : 27.04.2019
Exparte Judgment:
1.The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery for an amount of Rs. 04,33,961/ alongwith pendentelite, future interest, cost and expenses of the suit.
Plaintiff's case
2. The plaintiff bank is a Corporate Body constituted under the State Bank of India Act 1955 (Act no. XXIII of 1955) having its Central Office at Mumbai and Head Office at New Delhi having its branch at Defence Colony, New Delhi and having RACPC, 1 st Floor, F40, 2nd and 3rd Floor, Ring Road, South Extension1, Part1, New Delhi. The present case has been filed by Sh. L.C. Gupta, posted as Manager and Principal Officer in RACPC at Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
3. The defendant had approached and requested to the plaintiff bank for grant of financial assistance by way of vehicle/car Loan. Consequently, a Car Loan to the tune of Rs. 4,35,000/ for purchase CS - 713/2017 State Bank of India Vs. Rakesh Kumar Verma pg. 2 of 7 of Chevrolet beat was sanctioned on 27.07.2013 which was duly availed by the defendant as per his requirements and upon terms and conditions mentioned in the documents. The defendant executed and signed various documents in favour of the plaintiff bank. The defendant agreed to pay interest on the outstanding loan amount with monthly rests as per banking guildelines. The defendant undertook to pay or deposit 84 equal monthly loan installments of Rs. 7,323/ each in terms of the agreement.
4. A Car Loan account was opened with the plaintiff bank in the name of the defendant. However, the defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of loan agreement and committed consecutive defaults in repayment schedule as a result of which the loan account became irregular and sticky and classified as NPA on 02.09.2015. Despite repeated demands, reminders, notices and personal visits of field staff of plaintiff bank, defendant failed to pay the dues of plaintiff bank.
5. It is further averred that on persistent defaults, the plaintiff bank served the defendant with a legal notice dated 25.03.2017 calling upon the defendant to pay dues of plaintiff bank but despite service of legal notice, defendant failed to pay the dues of the plaintiff bank. It is alleged that as per books of accounts, amount of Rs. 4,33,961/ is to be recoverable from the defendant as on the date of filing the suit and payable by the defendant. It is prayed that a decree for an CS - 713/2017 State Bank of India Vs. Rakesh Kumar Verma pg. 3 of 7 amount of Rs. 04,33,961.24 alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 10% p.a. with monthly rests be passed in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant.
Court Proceedings
6. After institution of the suit, summons of the suit were issued to the defendant. As defendant could not be served through ordinary process, he was served by way of publication in Statesman dated 18.09.2018. As none appeared despite repeated calls, hence proceeded exparte vide Order dated 22.09.2018.
Evidence Led By Plaintiff
7. Statement of Sh. Alok Manglik, Manager, also an Authorised Representative of the plaintiff bank as PW1 in lieu of exparte evidence was recorded. The plaintiff relied upon the following documents : S. Ex. / Mark Description of document No. 1 Ex. PW1/1 True copy of Gazette Notification 2 Ex. PW1/2 Original Application form for car loan 3 Ex. PW1/3 Original Arrangement Letter dated 27.07.2013 4 Ex. PW1/4 Original Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement dated 27.07.2013 5 Ex. PW1/5 AnnexureI dated 27.07.2013 CS - 713/2017 State Bank of India Vs. Rakesh Kumar Verma pg. 4 of 7 6 Ex. PW1/6 Vehicle Delivery Letter dated 27.07.2013 7 Ex. PW1/7 Sanction letter 8 Ex. PW1/8 Standing instructions dated 27.07.2013 9 Ex. PW1/9 Office copy of legal notice dated 25.03.2017 10 Ex. PW1/10 Postal receipts (colly) 11 Ex. PW1/11 Courier receipts (colly) 12 Ex. PW1/12 Statement of account 13 Ex. PW1/13 Certificate of accrued interest 14 Ex. PW1/14 Original Certificate u/S. 65B Indian Evidence Act 15 Mark A Photocopy of retail invoice 16 Mark B Copy of PAN card of defendant 17 Mark C Electricity bill of defendant 18 Mark D Office ID of defendant Decision and Legal Reasoning
8. The testimony of Sh. Alok Manglik, Manager, Authorised Representative of the Plaintiff Bank as PW1 alongwith documents proved on record remained unrebutted and unchallenged in absence of any cross examination by the defendant and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence especially the documents relating to Car Loan Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/8, Office copy of legal notice dated 25.03.2017 alongwith original postal receipt and courier receipt Ex. PW110 and Ex.
CS - 713/2017 State Bank of India Vs. Rakesh Kumar Verma pg. 5 of 7 PW1/11, statement of account Ex. PW1/12, certificate of accrued interest Ex. PW1/13, supported with certificate u/s. 65B Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW1/14, I am satisfied that the recovery amount as claimed by the plaintiff bank stands proved on the scales of preponderance of probabilities.
9. Further, the Suit is well within limitation as same has been filed within three years. It is submitted that the plaintiff bank received installment of Rs. 11,905/ by transfer in the loan account of defendant on 29.1.2015 as reflected from Statement of Account Ex. PW1/12, therefore there is payment of part liability amount on account of which there is extension of period of limitation from the said date. The present suit has been filed on 05.05.2017, hence within limitation. Further, it is averred in the plaint that the documents of loan were executed and signed by the defendant at Defence Colony New Delhi branch and all loan transactions took place at Defence Colony, New Delhi branch of plaintiff bank in district South East Delhi which falls within the jurisdiction of this court, which averments have remained unrebutted and uncontested, hence this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the instant suit.
10. Accordingly, suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a total amount of Rs. 04,33,961/ in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant.
CS - 713/2017 State Bank of India Vs. Rakesh Kumar Verma pg. 6 of 7
11. Further, interest @ 10% p.a. has been sought. In my considered opinion, the ends of justice would be met if interest @ 9% p.a. is granted on the principal amount. Accordingly, interest @ 9% per annum is granted from the date of filing of the suit till date of decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Further, future interest @ 6% per annum is granted till realization of the principal amount.
12. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Costs of the suit are also allowed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
13. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (SURYA MALIK GROVER) Court on 27.04.2019. Additional District Judge 01(SE), Saket Courts, New Delhi. (sm) CS - 713/2017 State Bank of India Vs. Rakesh Kumar Verma pg. 7 of 7