HDFC BANK vs SENTHIL KUMAR on 31 August 2023

FINAL ORDER

1. This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate for recovery of a sum of Rs.68,69,126.18p together with interest at the rate of 8.51% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application till the date of realisation along with costs of the application and for sale of schedule property.

2. The subject matter of the case is the Auto Premium Loan availed by the defendant from the applicant bank.

3. It is the case of the applicant that the defendant approached the applicant vide Loan Application dated 29.08.2017 for grant of Auto Premium Loan and considering the said request the applicant granted a loan of Rs.73,84,000/- on 30.08.2017 under Loan Account No.50600463 and the said loan was disbursed to the dealer Jubliant Motor Works (South) Pvt. Ltd., Nandanam, Chennai identified by the defendant for the purchase of AUDI Q7 3.0 TDI bearing Registration No.PY-01 CR-5566. It is stated that the said loan was repayable in 84 equated monthly installments of Rs.1,16,974/- commencing from 05.10.2017 to 05.09.2024. It is also stated that the defendant executed various loan and security documents on 30.08.2017 to secure the said facility.

4. It is also the case of the applicant that the defendants violated the terms and conditions of sanction and committed default in repayments and failed to regularize the loan accounts despite repeated request and hence the applicant issued a legal notice on 21.05.2017 calling upon the defendant to clear the outstanding dues and the said notice with endorsement “Unclaimed”

at the first address and “Left” in the other two addresses. It is stated that despite repeated requests the defendant did not come forward to clear the outstanding dues.

5. It is the case of the applicant that after availing the loan, the defendant was irregular in remitting the loan amount. The efforts of the applicant bank to make the defendants to settle the loan did not yield any result, and hence the applicant approached this Tribunal seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate allowing recovery of the amount due in the account.

6. Summons taken out to the defendant returned unserved with endorsement “Unclaimed”. As there was no representation on behalf of the defendant continuously and on 06.12.2021, the defendant was called absent and set ex- parte on that day. Applicant Bank filed Proof Affidavit along with 11 documents, which were marked as Ex. A-1 to A-11 on 21.09.2022. The Ld. Counsel for Applicant Bank made his submissions on 03.07.2023 and thereafter the matter stood till this date for passing final orders.

7. The following issues arise for consideration in the matter: - (a) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the liability of the defendant?

(b) What order as to cost of the proceedings need be passed?

These issues are considered together.

8. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, perused the OA averments and the record placed before the Tribunal.

9. The evidence of the applicant is led by AW1 who produced the documents Exhibit A-1 to A-11 along with the proof affidavit. The documents produced in evidence are all found admissible. The proof affidavit of the applicant bank remained unchallenged and unrebutted. Therefore, on careful consideration of proof affidavit along with exhibits filed on behalf of the applicant bank, besides the material placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant bank has successfully proved the OA claim against the defendant. Further, the statement of accounts in respect of the loan account produced and certified under the Banker’s Book Evidence Act, clearly indicates that the amount claimed by the applicant is due from the defendants. It is clear from the statement of accounts that penal interest is not capitalized.

10. In view of the foregoing, it is clearly evident that the application filed by the applicant bank is well within the period of limitation and this Tribunal possesses the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this OA.

11. In view of the fact that the loan facility availed by the defendant is a Vehicle Loan and the applicant has claimed interest at contractual rate till the date of filing of the OA, this Tribunal is of the view that the pendente lite interest can be awarded at reduced rates.

12. In view of the afore mentioned discussions, the only conclusion this Tribunal can draw is that the applicant had clearly proved the disbursement of the loan, which the applicant is entitled to realize. Hence, OA is disposed off in the following manner: - (a) TA No.721 of 2023 stands allowed.

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize an aggregate sum of Rs.68,69,126.18p from the defendant together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum (simple), from the date of filing of the OA till date of realization after deducting all the amounts received by them during the pendency of OA, and also by selling the available hypotheca and other assets of the defendant.

(c) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the Applicant Bank, the defendant is personally liable for all such amounts due as ordered above.

(d) Applicant is permitted to realize cost of the proceedings and shall file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

(e) The Recovery Certificate shall be drawn up and issued to the Recovery Officer in terms of this final order.

13. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993. (Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 31st day of August, 2023) Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI