Delhi District Court
One Of Its Processing Centre Racpc vs Mr. Jitender Sachdeva on 29 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF DHEERAJ MOR,
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER,
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
Civil Suit no: 407/2019
State Bank of India
A Corporation Constituted under the State Bank of India Act,1995
Having its Central Office/Corporate Centre at
State Bank Bhavan, Madame Cama Road,
Mumbai-400024.
One of its Processing Centre RACPC,
F-40, 2nd & 3rd Floor, South Extn. Part-I,
New Delhi
Through its Manager Sh. Alok Manglik. ......Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Jitender Sachdeva
H.No.227/B, Ram Gali No.7,
Ashok Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi-110093.
...... Defendant
Date of Institution : 06.03.2019
Date on which judgment was reserved : 29.02.2020
Date of pronouncing judgment : 29.02.2020
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.2,26,616/- ALONGWITH
PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST.
JUDGMENT
1. In brief, case of the plaintiff is that it is a corporate body constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (Act No. XXIII of 1955) having its Central office at Madame Cama Place, Nariman Point, Mumbai and it is engaged in business of banking. It is further averred that Sh. Alok Manglik, Manager(SARC), signed and verified the present plaint and instituted the same on behalf of plaintiff bank being its authorized representative.
2. It is asserted that the defendant approached the plaintiff bank in order to CS No. 407/2019 State Bank of India Vs. Jitender Sachdeva secure a car loan facility. Acting upon the representations and assurances made by the defendant, loan to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/- was sanctioned vide sanction letter dated 20.09.2012. On such representation, a vehicle loan account bearing no.32556436774 of the defendant was opened with the plaintiff bank on 20.09.2012 and a vehicle loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- was disbursed to him on 20.09.2012 in his said loan account.
3. It is further averred that the defendant executed requisite loan documents including arrangement letter dated 20.09.2012 and loan-cum- hypothecation agreement dated 20.09.2012 and undertook to repay the loan amount as per terms of the loan agreement. The said loan was repayable in 84 equated monthly installments of Rs. 7,587/- each including interest. It is further averred that the defendant initially honoured the commitments of paying EMI's, but thereafter, repayment became irregular and due to persistent defaults committed by the defendant, the said loan was recalled by the plaintiff bank. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 21.02.2019 was sent to the defendant demanding the outstanding amount of Rs.2,26,616/- plus accrued interest in terms of the loan agreement within 07 days from the date of receipt thereof, failing which it was unequivocally stipulated that the plaintiff shall be constrained to initiate legal proceedings. However, the same was not repaid. Hence, the present suit for the recovery of Rs.2,26,616/- as on 15.02.2019 along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 0.75% per annum above base rate/MCLR with monthly rests during pendency of suit and till its realisation.
4. Summons for the settlement of issues were issued to the defendant and the same were received back duly served. However, after his first appearance, he stopped appearing. He also failed to file his written statement. Accordingly, he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 08.08.2019.
5. In ex-parte plaintiff evidence, plaintiff examined its AR, Sh. Alok Manglik. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/1. He CS No. 407/2019 State Bank of India Vs. Jitender Sachdeva has reiterated the contents of the plaint on oath. Therefore, they are not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition. He has relied upon following documents:-
a. Gazette Notification is Ex. PW1/A;
b. Sanction Letter dated 20.09.2012 is Ex.PW1/B; c. Loancumhypothecation agreement dated 20.09.2012 is Ex. PW1/C; d. Arrangement letter dated 20.09.2012 is Ex. PW1/D; e. Legal notice dated 21.02.2019 is Ex. PW1/E; f. Postal receipt dated 21.02.2019 is Ex. PW1/F; g. Speed Post tracking report is Ex. PW1/G; h. Certified accrued interest statement is Ex. PW1/H; i. Certified account statement is Ex.PW1/J (colly); and j. Certificate of accuracy of computer data and certificate under section 65B of Evidence Act,1872 is Ex. PW1/K. Vide order dated 06.02.2020, plaintiff evidence was closed.
6. Final arguments are heard. Case file is carefully perused.
7. The testimony of PW-1 has remained un-impeached. He has categorically and unequivocally testified that the defendant had availed loan facility from the plaintiff bank and he has defaulted in its repayment. He has corroborated his testimony by proving the relevant loan documents including original Arrangement letter dated 20.09.2012 Ex. PW-1/D, loan-cum- hypothetical agreement dated 20.09.2012 Ex. PW-1/C, statement of loan account Ex. PW1/J (colly) and certificate of accrued interest Ex. PW-1/H. The statement of loan account is a computer generated document and the same is supported by certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act, 1872 Ex.PW1/K. Thus, it is proved as per law. It establishes that on 15.02.2019, total amount of Rs.2,26,616/- was due against the defendant in respect of the aforesaid loan account inclusive of interest.
8. The suit of the plaintiff has remained uncontroverted and unrebutted as none has appeared on behalf of defendant to cross examine the plaintiff's witness. In view of the aforesaid documents and testimony of PW-1, there CS No. 407/2019 State Bank of India Vs. Jitender Sachdeva exists no reason to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff. Hence, all the averments and documents placed on record are deemed to be admitted and documents placed on record stand duly proved. By virtue of the un-impeached testimony of PW-1 and the documents placed on record by him, I am satisfied that a total amount of Rs.2,26,616/-is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff towards the repayment of the said loan.
9. The loan was disbursed on 20.09.2012 and it was repayable in seven years by way of 84 equated monthly installments. Thus, the present suit is filed within the statutory limitation period. Further, the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this court as loan transaction between the plaintiff bank and the defendant took place within the jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, this court has territorial jurisdiction to try this case. Furthermore, since the value of the suit is less than Rs. 3,00,000/-, this court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try and adjudicate this case.
10. In respect of interest, the plaintiff has claimed interest @ 0.75% per annum in its prayer clause of the present suit above the base rate/MCLR with monthly rests. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered opinion that pendente-lite and future interest @ 6% per annum would serve the ends of justice.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the evidence adduced has gone unrebutted and unchallenged, this court is of the considered opinion that plaintiff has been able to prove its case that it is entitled to repayment of loan amount and the aforesaid amount was due against the defendant as on 15.02.2019, which is not repaid till date. Thus, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of Rs.2,26,616/- (Rupees Two Lacs Twenty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Sixteen Only) alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of this suit till its realisation.
12. The plaintiff is also entitled to costs of proceedings and therefore, the CS No. 407/2019 State Bank of India Vs. Jitender Sachdeva present suit is decreed with costs.
Decree sheet be prepared.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.02.2020 (DHEERAJ MOR) Senior Civil Judge-cum- Rent Controller South East, Saket Court, New Delhi This judgment contains 05 pages and each page is signed by me.
(DHEERAJ MOR) Senior Civil Judge-cum- Rent Controller South East, Saket Court, New Delhi CS No. 407/2019 State Bank of India Vs. Jitender Sachdeva