Delhi District Court
Union Bank Of India vs Smt. Bharti on 13 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Sh. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL
District Judge (Commercial Court) -02,
Central, Tis Hazari
DLCT010117372023
CS (COMM.) No. 1170/2023
CNR No. DLCT010117372023
Union Bank of India
A Body Corporate constituted under
the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer
of Undertakings) Act, 1970,
Having its Head Office at
239, Cidhan Bhawan Marg,
Nariman Point, Mumbai,
and
Inter-alia One of its Branch Office at
330 Haveli Hyderquili Chandni Chowk,
Delhi 110006
Through Sh. Rajeev Ranjan
Senior Branch Manager ......Plaintiff
Versus
Smt. Bharti
w/o Sh. Ashok R/o 95/7, First Floor
Type 2, Sector 01,
Push Vihar, Malviya Nagar
Delhi 110017 ......Defendant
Date of filing of suit : 21.08.2023
Date of Argument : 11.02.2025
Date of Judgment : 13.02.2025
Union Bank of India
vs Bharti Date of Judgment 13.02.2025 ( page no. 1 of 10 )
JUDGMENT (Exparte)
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit for recovery of Rs.6,95,620.32- (Rs Six Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Six Hundred Twenty and Thirty Two paise only) filed by the Union Bank of India through its Senior Branch Manager (herein after referred to as "Plaintiff Bank") against the defendant Bharti.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the plaint are that in the year 2021, defendant approached the plaintiff bank for credit facility i.e grant of vehicle loan; plaintiff bank sanctioned the credit facility i.e vehicle loan to the extent of Rs 7,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5 % p.a to the defendant vide sanction letter dated 28.10.2021 vide loan account bearing no. 077316520000008 duly maintained by the plaintiff bank in its due course of time; the credit facility was to be repaid by the defendant in 84 equated monthly installments of Rs 10,736/-; defendant executed various security Union Bank of India vs Bharti Date of Judgment 13.02.2025 ( page no. 2 of 10 ) documents in favour of the plaintiff bank i.e demand promissory note dated 30.10.2021, letter of continuity dated 30.10.2021, hypothecation of vehicle agreement dated 30.10.2021, AD-02A, Letter of General Lien and Set off dated 30.10.2021, Interest agreement dated 30.10.2021 and letter of undertaking dated 30.10.2021.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff bank that the the said loan amount was disbursed to the defendant; defendant purchased a vehicle i.e car Maruti Suzuki Ciaz Sigma MT registered on 03.11.2021 vide registration bearing no. DL7CS-5728, Chassis No. MA3EXGL1S00444293, Engine No. K15BN9198057 and submitted the RC to the plaintiff bank; defendant availed the loan facility but failed to adhere to the financial discipline of the repayment of the loan; the loan account of the defendant became NPA on 29.07.2022; defendant acknowledged his liability by depositing the amount in the loan account from time to time and the last payment was made on 28.02.2022; plaintiff bank sent reminders dated 12.06.2022 & 13.07.2022 to Union Bank of India vs Bharti Date of Judgment 13.02.2025 ( page no. 3 of 10 ) the defendant to clear the outstanding dues; as per statement of account Rs 6,95,620.32/- is due and outstanding against the defendant on 30.09.2022; the loan facility was recalled by the plaintiff bank vide recall notice dated 22.10.2022 but despite that defendant failed to make any payment; Hence, the present suit was filed.
4. Since, the subject matter of the suit is a commercial dispute, therefore, the plaintiff is said to have approached Central DLSA in terms of section 12 (A) of the Commercial Court Act, 2015 and the Central DLSA has released a non-starter report dated 14.03.2023 in per-institution mediation process.
5. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant but the defendant could not be served through ordinary process. Subsequently, on an application under order V rule 20 CPC moved on behalf of the plaintiff bank, the defendant was served through publication in the newspaper namely 'The Statesman' dated 10.10.2024 but despite the service through publication, defendant failed to Union Bank of India vs Bharti Date of Judgment 13.02.2025 ( page no. 4 of 10 ) appear. Therefore, vide order dated 24.12.2024 defendant was proceeded exparte, second Case Management Hearing was fixed and case was adjourned for exparte plaintiff evidence.
6. The plaintiff bank, in support of its case, has examined its Branch Manager/AR Awinash Kumar as PW1, who deposed on the lines of the averments made in the plaint in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon the documents i.e Copy of GPA Ex.PW1/1, Loan application along with relevant documents Ex.PW1/2 (Colly), Sanction letter dated 28.10.2021 Ex.PW1/3, Demand promissory note dated 30.10.2021 Ex.PW1/4, Letter of continuity dated 30.10.2021 Ex.PW1/5, Hypothecation of vehicle agreement dated 30.10.201 Ex.PW1/6, AD-02A, letter of general lien dated 30.10.2021 Ex.PW1/7, Interest agreement dated 30.10.2021 Ex.PW1/8, Letter of undertaking from the borrowers dated 30.10.2021 Ex.PW1/9, Copy of the registration certificate in respect of the vehicle Ex.PW1/10, Copy of recall notice dated 22.10.2022 Ex.PW1/11, Statement of Union Bank of India vs Bharti Date of Judgment 13.02.2025 ( page no. 5 of 10 ) account Ex.PW1/12, Certificate u/s 2A (b) of Banker's Books Evidence Act and certificate u/s 65 B of the then Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW1/13 (colly) and Non-starter report dated 14.03.2023 Ex.PW1/14.
7. Thereafter vide order dated 21.01.2025, the exparte evidence of the plaintiff bank was closed.
8. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff bank has argued more or less on the lines of the averments made in the plaint and deposition of the plaintiff's witness PW1 and submitted that plaintiff bank has been able to establish its case. He submitted that the case of the plaintiff bank has gone unchallenged as defendant has chosen not to appear. He further submitted that plaintiff bank has proved all the documents ExPW1/1 to ExPW1/14 and has been able to establish its case.
9. I have gone through the material available on record and heard the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff bank.
Union Bank of India vs Bharti Date of Judgment 13.02.2025 ( page no. 6 of 10 )
10. Before proceeding further, I may mention that vide application form ExPW1/2 (colly), defendant applied for a loan in the sum of Rs 7,00,000/- and executed demand promissory note dated 30.10.2021 ExPW1/4, Hypothecation of vehicle dated 30.10.2021 ExPW1/6. It has also come on the record that loan was sanctioned vide sanction letter dated 30.10.2021 ExPW1/3 and as per statement of account ExPW1/12, last payment of Rs 10,736/-, was made by the defendant on 28.02.2022 Therefore, the cause of action for filing the present suit arose on all the aforesaid dates also. The present suit has been filed on 21.08.2023 which is well within the period of limitation.
11. As per the case set up by the plaintiff bank, plaintiff bank has the Branch Office at Chandni Chowk, New Delhi from where the loan documents said to have been executed and processed. The application form ExPW1/2 (Colly) vide which defendant applied for the loan to purchase Ciaz Sigma is on the record which bears the stamp of Union Bank of India, Chandni Chowk Branch, which falls within the jurisdiction of this court.
Union Bank of India vs Bharti Date of Judgment 13.02.2025 ( page no. 7 of 10 ) Therefore, this court has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.
12. The plaintiff bank has examined Sh Awinash Kumar AR of the Plaintiff bank as PW1 who has also deposed on the lines of the averments made in the plaint and has proved the documents from ExPW1/1 to ExPW1/14 (colly). From the testimony of PW1, it has come on record that defendant had applied for loan to the extent of Rs 7,00,000/- vide loan application ExPW1/2 (colly); executed demand promissory note ExPW1/4, letter of continuity ExPW1/5, Hypothecation of vehicle agreement ExPW1/5, interest agreement ExPW1/8 and the loan was sanctioned vide letter ExPW1/3. It has also been established that as per the statement of account ExPW1/12, as maintained by the plaintiff bank, the principle amount of Rs 6,95,620.32/- is due and outstanding against the defendant as on 07.10.2022.
13. The case of the plaintiff bank has gone unchallenged as the defendant has chosen not to appear before the court and not to contest the suit by Union Bank of India vs Bharti Date of Judgment 13.02.2025 ( page no. 8 of 10 ) filing the written statement. The testimony of PW1 has gone un-rebutted and un-controverted and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the same. Thus, the plaintiff bank has been able to establish on record that the defendant was under legal obligation to an amount of Rs 6,95,620.32/- to the plaintiff bank. Therefore, the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the said amount from the defendant.
14. As regards the interest, the plaintiff bank has claimed pendente-lite and future interest @ 10.90% per annum. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, Court is of the view that same is on higher side. Interest of justice would be met by awarding same @ 8% per annum.
15. In view of my aforesaid discussion, the Court is of the view that the plaintiff bank has been able to prove its case against the defendant. Thus, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff bank and against the defendant and following reliefs are granted:-
(i.) The plaintiff bank is entitled to recover Rs 6,95,620.32/-(Rs Six Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Six Hundred Twenty and Thirty Two paise only) from the defendant.
Union Bank of India vs Bharti Date of Judgment 13.02.2025 ( page no. 9 of 10 ) (ii.) The plaintiff bank is also awarded the pendente-lite and future interest @ 8% per annum.
(iii.) Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff bank.
16. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
17. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance. RAJESH Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date: 2025.02.13 GOEL 11:47:07 +0530 (Rajesh Kumar Goel) District Judge (Commercial)-02 Central, Tis Hazari Courts 13.02.2025 Announced in the Open Court today i.e: 13.02.2025 Union Bank of India vs Bharti Date of Judgment 13.02.2025 ( page no. 10 of 10 )