IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA C.R.P.No.358/2010 (SC) BETWEEN:
Smt.M.Gayathri, W/o Sri.Chikka Muniswamappa, Aged about 50 Years, Assistant Mistress, Govt. Higher Primary School, Kamakshipalya, Bangalore – 560079. Residing at: No.65, 11th A Main Road, Kaveripura, Kamakshipalya, Bangalore – 560079. ... Petitioner (By Sri.T.Subramanya for T.Subramanya Associates, Advs.,) AND:
1. M/s. Indian Bank, Having its Head Office No.66, Rajaji Salai, P.B.No.1384, Chennai – 600001. Branches Interalia No.7, No.7, Gandhi Bazaar, Basavanagudi, Bangalore – 560004, Rep by its Chief Manager.
2. B.P.Sunandamma, W/o Sri.P.Nanjappa, Aged about 58 Years, No.1339, 1st Main Road, 5th E Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore – 560010. ... Respondents (By Sri.S.N.Bhat, Adv. for R-1, R-2 is served & unrepresented) This C.R.P. is filed under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Court’s Act, against the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2010 passed in S.C.1196/2008 on the file of the I Addl. SCJ & MACT, Bangalore, partly decreeing the suit for recovery of money.
This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This petition is directed against the judgment and decree of the Small Causes Court at Bengaluru in S.C.No.1196/2008.
3. Briefly stated, the facts are:
The petitioner is working as a teacher at Bengaluru and it is averred that she is the member of the Society – Bangalore North Range Teacher’s and Employees Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, having its office at Vardarajanagar, Singapura Main Road, Vidyaranyapura Post, Bangalore 560097. During the year 1999-00, she had raised a loan to the extent of Rs.27,000/- to purchase some consumable items. It is the averment of the petitioner that she had repaid the entire loan amount to the said society and was not in arrears of any loan; Surprisingly, the plaintiff bank had instituted S.C.No.1196/2008 on the file of the I Additional Small Causes Judge for recovery of the arrears of Rs.72,000/-. The trial Court without appreciating the material evidence on record, ordered to pay a sum of Rs.23,689/- along with simple interest at the rate of 15% from 01/04/2002 till the date of filing of the suit i.e., 17/08/2008 and current and future simple interest @ 10% per annum on Rs.23,689/- from 18/08/2008 till realization with Rs.500/- towards the legal notice charges.
4. Learned counsel Sri.T.Subramanya, assailing the impugned judgment and order, would invite the attention of this Court to Exs.P2 to P4 to contend that the loan application was made on 18/09/1999, the sanction order was dated 07/10/1999, pronote was dated 07/10/1999, whereas Ex.P4 the consideration letter addressed to the bank is dated 10/09/1999 which indicates that the goods were purchased by the petitioner on 10/09/1999 prior to the sanction letter and pronote. These inconsistencies found in these documents was not well appreciated by the trial Court while decreeing the suit. Thus, the learned counsel submits that the trial court grossly erred in accepting the plea of the plaintiff-Bank and ignoring the material evidence of the plaintiff having repaid the entire loan to the society from which she had borrowed the money. The society in turn had forwarded the papers to the bank. The learned counsel submits that though the loan application was for a sum of Rs.27,000/-, the petitioner had received only a sum of Rs.19,000/-. The claim of Rs.27,000/- by the plaintiff-Bank with the interest at the rate of 17.5% is wholly untenable. The Trial court erred in awarding the interest at a higher rate on the amount to Rs.23,689/-, considering the amount paid by the petitioner to the plaintiff-Bank in installments. Thus, the learned counsel seeks for setting aside the impugned Judgment and order and to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank supports the impugned judgment and decree and contends that the petitioner had categorically admitted her signature at Ex.P3. The petitioner being a teacher, having raised the loan cannot turn back and dispute the same without any valid basis. The contention of the petitioner that she was a member of the society, raised the loan through the society and paid the same to the society are all concocted theory in order to escape the liability of repayment. The documentary material evidence clearly establishes that the petitioner had raised a loan for a sum of Rs.27,000/-, agreeing to pay the interest at the rate of 17.5% per annum with quarterly rest. These aspects were rightly appreciated by the trial Court while decreeing the suit and the same do not warrant any interference by this Court.
6. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner is contending that she had raised a loan through the society and repaid the loan to the society, the plaintiff bank is making allegation of having raised the loan and not repaid the same. This contention of the plaintiff do not instill any confidence for the reasons that Exs.P2 and P3 clearly demonstrates the loan of Rs.27,000/- being raised by the plaintiff bank. The signature on this document is admitted by the petitioner in her evidence. To substantiate that she had raised the loan from the society and had repaid the same, no iota of evidence is produced by the petitioner before the Court. Neither the responsible officer of the said society is examined nor the said society was impleaded in the proceedings. Mere allegation against the society would not be suffice to accept the contentions of the petitioner unless proved in accordance with law. After evaluation of the material evidence, the Trial court has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner had raised loan of Rs.27,000/- from the plaintiff bank and after deducting the installments paid to the plaintiff bank, a balance amount of Rs.23,689/- was due as on 31.3.2002. Considering the same, the trial Court decreed the suit in part directing the petitioner to pay the due amount of Rs.23,689/- with interest of 15% from 01/04/2002. However, awarding simple interest of 15% p.a., from 01/04/2002 till date of filing of the suit and current and future simple interest at 10% per annum on Rs.23,689/- from 18/08/2008 till realization appears to be excessive. Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met in awarding uniform rate of simple interest at 10% per annum from 01/04/2002 till realization.
7. Accordingly, the judgment and order of the Trial court is modified. The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.23,689/- along with simple interest at 10% per annum from 01/04/2002 till the date of realization besides Rs.500/- towards the legal notice charges awarded by the Trial Court. The petition stands disposed of in terms of the above. The decree shall be modified accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE RS/* & NC.