ICICI BANK LTD Vs. GAURAV TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment/order dated 24th April, 2015 by which the suit for recovery filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff bank (hereinafter, "Plaintiff bank") was dismissed. The judgement of the Trial Court dismisses the suit on the ground that the statements of accounts have not been duly proved under Section 65B of the India Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter, "Evidence Act").

(2.) In the appeal, notice was issued on 25th August, 2015. On the same date, a representative of the Plaintiff bank was appointed as a receiver. The receiver was directed to take over physical possession of the vehicle, and in case the Respondents/Defendants (hereinafter, "Defendants") were to pay the outstanding sum, the vehicle was to be released to them. The Receiver was directed to file his report within one week. The Defendants remained unserved as they had "left the given address", and steps were taken to serve them through publication. Service was finally recorded as having been completed by the order of the Registrar on 4th April, 2016. Despite service, the Defendants failed to appear. Thus, the appeal was admitted and listed in the category of Regular matters on 7th April, 2016.

(3.) The Defendants approached the Plaintiff bank for financing of the purchase of a vehicle under loan-cum-hypothecation scheme for a sum of sum of Rs.3,96,000/-.The Defendants agreed to repay the loan amount in 60 equal monthly instalments (hereinafter, "EMI") of Rs.8,960/- each. The loan was duly sanctioned and was disbursed on 10th May, 2012 to the dealer from whom the vehicle was to be purchased by the Defendants, after deducting usual processing fee and stamp duty charges. All the loan documents were executed by the Defendants.