Delhi District Court
Through Its Authorised Representative vs Aarti Sharma on 22 October, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANSHUL MEHTA: CIVIL JUDGE04:
CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURT: NEW DELHI
Case No. 3295/2018
IN THE MATTER OF:
ICICI Bank Limited
Having its Registered Office:
Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road
Vadodaram, Gujarat390007.
And Having its Branch Office at:
2nd Floor, Videocon Tower
BlockE1, Jhandewalan Extn.,
New Delhi110055.
Through its Authorised Representative
Mr. Mohit Grover
...
Plaintiff.
Versus
1. Aarti Sharma
D/o Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Sharma
R/o RZ30, ABlock, Durga Vihar
Phase2, Dindarpur, Near Friday Market
Delhi110043.
2. Kamlakant Sharma
S/o Sh. Akhilesh
R/o RZ30, ABlock, Durga Vihar
Phase2, Dindarpur, Near Friday Market
Delhi110043.
...
Defendants
Date of filing : 05.11.2018
CS No.3295/18
ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Aarti Sharma & Anr.
Judgment dated 22.10.2020 Page no. 5 of 5
Date of Institution : 12.11.2018
Date of pronouncing judgment : 22.10.2020
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 2,68,045.50
JUDGMENT
Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the present suit filed by the plaintiff bank for recovery of Rs.2,68,045.50 along with interest @ 24% per annum. The brief facts of the present case are as follows:
1. That the plaintiff is a Banking Company within the meaning of Banking Regulation Act and is interalia engaged in the business of banking, financing and providing loan facilities to its customers for purchase of vehicles, machinery etc. The present case was filed by the plaintiff bank through its AR Sh. Mohit Grover. The defendant had approached the plaintiff bank to avail Car loan facility.
2. That the plaintiff bank sanctioned and disbursed a loan of Rs.3,58,100/ to the defendant on 14.10.2016 vide loan agreement bearing no. LADEL00034936509. The defendant agreed to pay the said loan in 48 equated monthly installment of Rs. 9,130/ each.
3. That the defendant failed to adhere to the financial discipline and defaulted in making payments despite several reminders.
Defendant had paid only 18 EMIs and commenced default from CS No.3295/18 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Aarti Sharma & Anr.
Judgment dated 22.10.2020 Page no. 5 of 5 installment due on 10.11.2016.
4. That the plaintiff bank served a legal notice with regard to non payment on the defendant on 03.07.2018. That as per the loan account maintained by the plaintiff bank, defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2,68,045.50 towards principal, interest, penal interest and other dues. Thus, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking a decree of Rs. 2,68,045.50 alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 24% per annum alongwith cost of the suit.
5. The defendant was served by way of publication on 01.09.2019. Despite service through publication, the defendant failed to appear before the Court and consequently the defendant was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 12.02.2020.
6. In his exparte evidence, the plaintiff examined Sh. Mohit Grover, AR of the plaintiff bank as PW1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following document:
1) Power of Attorney is Ex. PW1/1 (O.S.&R).
2) Preliminary Credit Facility Application is Ex. PW1/2.
3) Credit Facility Application Form is Ex. PW1/3. CS No.3295/18 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Aarti Sharma & Anr.
Judgment dated 22.10.2020 Page no. 5 of 5
4) Unattested Deed of Hypothecation is Ex. PW1/4.
5) Irrevocable Power of Attorney is Ex. PW1/5.
6) The Disbursement Memo is Ex. PW1/6.
7) The statement of accounts dt. 03.08.2018 is Ex. PW1/7(colly).
8) Certificate u/s. 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is Ex. PW1/8.
9) Certificate U/s. 2A of the Bankers Book Evidence Act, 1891 is Ex. PW1/9.
10) Notice dt. 14.06.2017 is Ex. PW1/10 and its postal receipt is marked as Mark X.
7. Despite opportunities given, defendant did not cross examine PW1 and further failed to lead any defence evidence. At the stage of final arguments also, no one turned up on behalf of defendant.
8. I have heard exparte final arguments on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant was proceeded exparte in this case. The evidence of PW1 stands unrebutted and unchallenged as PW1 was never crossexamined by the defendant. In view of the unchallenged testimony of PW1 and on the basis of material on record, it may be said that the plaintiff bank has been able to prove its case on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.
9. Plaintiff has prayed for interest of 24% per annum from the CS No.3295/18 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Aarti Sharma & Anr.
Judgment dated 22.10.2020 Page no. 5 of 5 date of filing of the suit till its realization, which seems to be exorbitant. In the given facts and circumstances, Court is only inclined to award interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
10. In view of the discussion above, the present suit is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant. The plaintiff bank is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 2,68,045.50 alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the decreetal amount. Cost of the suit be also awarded in favour of the plaintiff bank.
11. With these observations, the present suit is disposed of. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
12. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed by
ANSHUL ANSHUL MEHTA
MEHTA Date: 2020.10.22
16:17:19 +0530
(Anshul Mehta)
CJ04, Central,THC/Delhi
Announced in the open Court on this 22nd day of October, 2020 This judgment consists of 5 signed pages. CS No.3295/18 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Aarti Sharma & Anr.
Judgment dated 22.10.2020 Page no. 5 of 5