Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. During cross examination he admits entire loan agreement and sanctioning loan amount of Rs.3,16,000/­. Further he agreed by obtaining loan from the complainant finance he purchased 2nnd hand LPT lorry vehicle that has been hypothicated in favour of the complainant finance as per Ex.P.8 & 9. HE too admits the signatures on those documents which have been duly marked under Ex.P.8(a) and 9(a). Further he admits photos of hypothicated which have been marked under Ex.P.10 to 17. The accused has also admits issuance of cheque and signature on it. Further he admits due service of the legal notice but denies the claimed amount through the complaint.

14. After careful scrutiny of entire oral and documentary evidence placed by the parties it reveals that as per defence the complainant finance has sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 3,16,000/­ on 28.3.2017. The defence counsel has suggested in one angle has the accused has made part payment of Rs.74,000/­ and in another angle it has been defended that the accused has made part payment entire agreed installments and there is no due amount to be paid by the accused. To show this entire payment during cross examination of DW1 accused was ready to produce relevant CC NO.2187/2021 document like account statement but not produced further more toward s part payment alleged to be done by th accused is also not proved properly accused failed to produced relevant documents like receipts to that effect. Further it is observed that the issuance of cheque is not disputed , but it was defended that the cheque was issued on the date of loan sanction on not on the date alleged under the complaint and that has been issued towards security purpose not for discharging of legal liability. Further, it is observed that accused never denied execution of documents like loan application loan hypothecation agreement as per Ex.P.8 &9 including his signatures. Further it is observed that the whatever part payment defended by the accused has been duly reflected in account statement Ex.P.7 produced by the complainant finance. Apart it accused has make payment of agreed interest on balance amount at the rate of 14.5%. Complainant finance is having legal money lending licenses to seek agreed rate of interest therefore, complainant finance is entitled to charge the agreed rate of interest on the balance loan amount to be paid by the accused. Furthermore the accused who executed voluntarily loan hypothication deed along with a loan application by agreeing to pay the agreed rate of interest then at this stage it can not denied the interest amount claimed through the complaint. Furthermore CC NO.2187/2021 the hypothicated vehicle which was purchased by the accused is in the possession of the accused and he on road having its own income . Therefore, it is observed that complainant has not taken legal steps to wards seizure of the hypothicated vehicle in fact they have insisted the accused to regularize his repayment process by making payment of defaulted installments but accused not obliged the reminder issued by the complainant finance. Hence, defence taken by the accused holds no water. He himself admits legal liability of payment of cheque amount in one angle, in another angle, he deposed that, he has issued cheque in dispute for security purpose. Therefore after considering the versions of the accused it creates doubt on the defence raised by the accused and in absence of any such rebuttal evidence it is legally presumed that the accused is due of amount of Rs.3,16,000/­. It is only defence that the cheque was issued by the accused at the time of execution of loan agreement towards security purpose and that has been misused by the complainant finance. Accused produced no reliable documents to show the entire payment of loan amount. Further it is observed that the hypothicated vehicle possessed by the accused and having income from the vehicle . Despite it he intentionally avoided making payment of agreed installments. On the contrary it is observed that the complainant CC NO.2187/2021 finance has duly proved the execution of loan hypothication agreement by the accused. Further the entire documents produced by the complainant finance have been duly admitted by the accused .But to disprove the complainant case accused not produced reliable documentary evidence hence the amount shown under the cheque is legally recoverable debt. Despite it the defence has taken as the disputed cheque was issued towards security purpose but as on date of cheque the amount to be payable by the accused is entitled by the complainant finance through the disputed cheque.