Delhi District Court
M/S Icici Bank Ltd vs Jasbir Kaur on 24 January, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARVEEN SINGH, ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL
JUDGE (NORTH WEST), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. : 69/08
Unique I.D.: 02404C0008172008.
M/s ICICI Bank Ltd.
Through Mr. Anurodh Julius
Constituted Attorney
of the Bank having Registered Office at:
''Landmark'', Race Course Circle,
Vadodara390007.
Having Branch Office at:
S.D. Tower, Sector8, Rohini,
New Delhi. ...Plaintiff.
Versus
Jasbir Kaur,
D/o Sh. Gokul Singh,
R/o H. No. 471/10,
Krishna Colony,
Near Geeta Bhawan Mandir,
Gurgaon122001. ...Defendant.
Date of Institution : 24.11.2008.
Date of Arguments : 24.01.2012.
Date of Judgment : 24.01.2012.
Suit No. 69/08 No. 1 of4
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.1,33,818/,
JUDGMENT:
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of a suit for recovery of Rs.1,33,818/ filed on behalf of the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiff is a bank and is a body corporate incorporated and registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is further submitted that the defendant approached the plaintiff bank for financial assistance to enable him to purchase a vehicle namely M800/AC under the loan and hypothecation scheme of the plaintiff bank. It is further submitted that the request of the defendant was duly considered and, on 22.03.2006, a loan of Rs.1,71,000/ was sanctioned by the plaintiff bank to the defendant. The said loan amount alongwith interest and other charges was repayable by the defendant in 60 equal monthly installments of Rs.3,788/ each. The defendant in order to secure the aforesaid loan sanctioned, executed a credit facility application form dated 22.03.2006 in favour of the plaintiff bank, an unattested deed of hypothecation, irrevocable power of attorney. The entry of the said hypothecation of the said vehicle was duly entered into the R/C book of the said vehicle issued by the competent authority. It is further submitted that after availing the said loan from the plaintiff bank, the defendant failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement regarding repayment of amount either towards principal or towards the interest or charges thereon. It is further submitted that several ESC instructions issued by the defendant for repayment of loan were dishonoured or returned unpaid. Several reminders were issued to the defendant to pay the outstanding loan amount but to no avail. The plaintiff company finally issued a demand notice dated 06.09.2008 calling upon the defendant to repay the entire Suit No. 69/08 No. 2 of4 outstanding amount and return the vehicle which is hypothecated to the bank under the agreement. However, despite the receipt of the notice, the defendant failed to comply with the notice. It is further submitted that as per the account maintained by the plaintiff, the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,33,818/ towards principal, interest and other charges. Hence, the present suit.
3. Summons for settlement of issues were issued to the defendant and the same were served upon the defendant. Thereafter, the memo of appearance was filed on bahelf of the defendant and time was granted for filing of written statement. Thereafter, the defendant failed to appear and was proceeded exparte by my learned predecessor vide order dated 09.03.2011. Thereafter, the plaintiff led its exparte evidence and examined Sh. Ashish Kaushal, attorney of the plaintiff bank as PW1.
4. PW1 Sh. Ashish Kaushal, attorney of the plaintiff bank deposed on the lines of the plaint and proved the original credit facility agreement, deed of hypothecation and irrevocable power of attorney as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/3 respectively. He further proved the certified statement of account as Ex.PW1/4. He further proved the copy of demand notice alongwith postal receipts as Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6 and the copy of letter dated 08.10.2008 issued to the defendant by the plaintiff bank as Ex.PW1/8.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record very carefully.
6. As the testimony of PW1 has been entirely unrebutted and unchallenged, I have no reasons to disbelieve the same. In view of the above, the plaintiff has become entitled for a decree. As regards the interest, the agreed rate of interest is 9% p.a. and there is a clause that in Suit No. 69/08 No. 3 of4 case of defaults, the rate of interest would be 24% per annum. However, the same is an exaggerated rate of interest and is a penalty clause and the penalties cannot be enforced under Indian Contract Act. However, considering that the defendant has defaulted in making the payment to the plaintiff, I am of the opinion that it will be equitable if interest @ 11% p.a. is granted to the plaintiff. Thus, a decree of 1,33,818/ alongwith interest @ 11% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization, is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court (PARVEEN SINGH) on 24.01.2012. ACJCUMARC NORTHWEST (This judgment contains four pages and ROHINI COURTS, DELHI. each page bears my signature.) Suit No. 69/08 No. 4 of4