Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Neelam Verma on 2 July, 2020
State Bank of India Vs Neelam Verma
CS DJ ADJ21/2017
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TARUN YOGESH
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE03: SOUTH WEST DISTRICT:
DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No. 21/17
CNR No. DLSW010000932017
In the matter of:
State Bank of India, A Body Corporate
Constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955
Having its Head Office/Central Office/Corporate
Office at State Bank Bhavan, Madam Kama Road,
Mumbai440024, one of its Local Head Office at
11, Sansad Marg, New Delhi01 and having one of
its Branch at Gulabi Bagh and RACPC at A5,
Pearl Best HeightI, Netaji Subhash Palace,
New Delhi.
Through its Chief Manager Shri R.K. Garg ... Plaintiff
Versus
Mrs. Neelam Verma
W/o Shri Shiv Kumar Verma
House No. C150, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi18. ... Defendant
Date of Institution of suit : 06.01.2017
Date on which judgment was pronounced : 02.07.2020
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff, a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act 1955, having its Head Office/Central Office/Corporate Office at State Bank Bhavan, Madam Kama Road, Mumbai440024 and Branch Offices throughout India has filed suit for recovery through Shri Rajesh Kumar Garg, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, RACPC at A5, Pearl Best HeightI, Netaji Subhash Palace, New Delhi.
PAGE NO.1/4 D.O.D.02.07.2020
State Bank of India Vs Neelam Verma
CS DJ ADJ21/2017
2. It is averred that "Stressed Assets Recovery Centre" has been established to deal exclusively with NPA Accounts of various branches of SBI situated within Delhi/New Delhi and NPA Accounts of branches throughout Delhi have been transferred to RACPC at A5, Pearl Best HeightI, Netaji Subhash Palace, New Delhi after reorganization of set up of State Bank of India.
3. As averred in the plaint, defendant Mrs. Neelam Verma approached State Bank of India, Gulabi Bagh Branch seeking loan facility for purchasing Skoda Fabio CS car under the 'SBI Auto Loan Scheme' by submitting documents of identification, residence and income proof.
4. Plaintiff agreed to sanction and disburse auto loan of Rs.6,00,000/ for purchasing the car after considering her proposal, requirement, financial feasibility and viability and defendant executed various documents creating securities in favour of plaintiff for repayment of loan amount along with applicable expenses and interest by way of 84 EMIs of Rs.10,592/. Interest upon outstanding loan amount was to be charged @ 12% of SBAR per annum with monthly rests subject to rise and fall from time to time as per Banking Guidelines and defendant agreed to pay panel interest to be charged over the agreed interest in case of default in payment of monthly EMIs.
5. Defendant, after availing loan facility disbursed by the bank by opening Term Loan Account No.32190986357, started committing regular default in repayment of loan amount and failed to adhere to the payment schedule as a result of which the loan account became irregular and sticky and was eventually declared NPA on 01.12.2015.
6. Since repeated requests and reminders to regularize the loan account did not evoke any response and legal notice dated 28.12.2016 calling upon defendant to pay the outstanding amount along with interest and expenses was not complied so plaintiff left with no option has filed suit for recovery of Rs.4,48,277/ along with pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of suit till payment/realization of decretal amount.
7. Summons of summary suit in prescribed form No. 4 Appendix B CPC could not be served upon defendant Mrs. Neelam Verma and plaintiff's application under Order V Rule 20 CPC for substituted service through publication in newspaper "Veer Arjun" was allowed on PAGE NO.2/4 D.O.D.02.07.2020 State Bank of India Vs Neelam Verma CS DJ ADJ21/2017 23.01.2019 after plaintiff's counsel recorded his statement for treating summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC as ordinary suit for recovery.
8. Substituted service through publication in Hindi Newspaper "Veer Arjun" was effected on 25.03.2019 and defendant having failed to appear in person or through counsel on 23.04.2019 and 31.05.2019 has been proceeded exparte on 22.08.2019
9. Matter was posted for exparte plaintiff's evidence and Shri Rajiv Jain, Deputy Branch, SBI, RACPC Branch, 11 Parliament Street, New Delhi has been substituted as Authorized Representative of the bank in place of Shri Rajesh Kumar Garg vide order dated 06.01.2020. He has deposed as PW1 by tendering his affidavit Ex.PW1/1 in evidence and relied upon following documents:
a) Copy of Gazette notification dated 27.03.1987 Mark PA;
b) Loan application form, proposal form, car loan related documents Ex.PW1/B (colly);
c) Copies of documents qua intended loan Ex.PW1/C (colly);
d) Appraisal cum Sanction letter dated 13.02.2012, consent letter, vehicle report, opinion report of plaintiff bank etc. Ex.PW1/D (colly);
e) Loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 14.02.2012 Ex.PW1/E;
f) Certificate of posting dated 14.02.2012 Ex.PW1/F;
g) Arrangement letter dated 14.02.2012 Ex.PW1/G;
h) Undertaking by defendant Ex.PW1/H;
i) Copy of notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act and formal notices Ex.PW1/I (colly);
j) Copy of legal notice dated 28.12.2016 and original postal receipt Ex.PW1/J (colly);
k) Copy of loan statement of defendant w.e.f. 14.02.2012 to 03.01.2017 Ex.PW1/K (colly);
l) Certificate under Section 2A of Bankers Book of Evidence Act and Section 65B of Evidence Act Ex.PW1/L and PAGE NO.3/4 D.O.D.02.07.2020 State Bank of India Vs Neelam Verma CS DJ ADJ21/2017
m) Certificate of accrued interest dated 03.01.2017 Ex.PW1/M.
10. Plaintiff's averments and testimony of PW1 Shri Rajiv Jain have remained uncontroverted as defendant Mrs. Neelam Verma has failed to appear and contest the suit despite substituted service through publication.
11. Documents viz. (i) loan application form; (ii) proposal form; (iii) appraisal of car loan; (iv) irrevocable letter of authority; (v) forwarding letter issued to dealer; (vi) consent letter;
(vii) loancumhypothecation agreement; (viii) arrangement letter; (ix) undertaking; (x) notice dated 11.07.2014 under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act and (xi) legal notice dated 28.12.2016 have been referred as Ex.PW1/B to Ex.PW1/J whereas (a) copy of loan statement w.e.f. 14.02.2012 to 03.01.2017; (b) certificate under Section 2A of the Bankers Book of Evidence Act and Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and (c) Certificate of accrued interest from 01.12.2015 up to 03.01.2017 have been proved as Ex.PW1/K, Ex.PW1/L and Ex.PW1/M respectively.
12. Since defendant Mrs. Neelam Verma has failed to repay the loan amount through EMI by adhering to payment schedule so plaintiff is entitled to recover the outstanding dues in the loan account as per copy of loan statement (Ex. PW1/K) along with expenses and interest.
13. Plaintiff's suit is therefore decreed for a sum of Rs.4,48,277/ along with pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum being contractual rate of interest together with costs of the suit.
14. Decreesheet be prepared accordingly.
15. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by TARUN YOGESH TARUN DN: c=IN, o=DELHI HIGH COURT,
ou=DISTRICT COURTS DELHI,
2.5.4.20=2cf41fb7d79e24d6d26020
4c7c495a032dde268512778611117
YOGESH
5679b294f5529,
postalCode=110075, st=DELHI,
cn=TARUN YOGESH
Date: 2020.07.06 16:33:30 +05'30'
Announced in Video Conferencing (Tarun Yogesh)
Through CISCO WEBEX ADJ03/South West
On 02.07.2020 Dwarka / New Delhi
PAGE NO.4/4 D.O.D.02.07.2020