Full News
In light of evidence, recovery suit of amt. due decreed in favor of plaintiff.
In light of evidence, recovery suit of amt. due decreed in favor of plaintiff.
Plaintiff ran business of Hire Purchase & Finance. Plaintiff took one LG Mobile E612 on Hire Purchase Finance from M/s Bunty Music Centre on proposal of defendant. Defendant undertook to pay for liability. Amount remained overdue. On suit for recovery. Court held, In light of evidence on record, present suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff & against defendants to extent that plaintiff is entitled to recover from defendants along with interest.-500340
Facts in brief:
1. Plaintiff is a Limited NBF company engaged in doing business of Hire Purchase and Finance.
2. Defendant No. 1 proposed to the plaintiff to take one LG Mobile E612 on Hire Purchase Finance from M/s Bunty Music Centre, HII 22, Madangir, New Delhi62.
3. The guarantee of defendant no.2 was also proposed. The plaintiff verified and considered the proposal and it was agreed that the defendant no.1 would thereafter pay hire in 12 monthly installments of Rs.1270/ each, first hire payable on 15.10.2012 and thereafter remaining to be paid on 15th of each month.
4. Last installment was payable 15.09.2013. In case of any delayed hire installment, overdue interest @ 2.5% p.m. was also agreed to be payable.
5. Thereafter, the plaintiff accordingly let the desired one LG Mobile E612 on Hire Purchase Finance and Hire Purchase agreement dated 05.09.2012 was executed. The defendants also executed Promissory note dated 05.09.2012 as collateral security for amount of Rs.15,240/ liable to be paid under the agreement.
6. Pursuant to the documents, the defendants undertook to pay the liability in installments as per terms and conditions, but have committed defaults in repaying schedule. The part payment was made, however, till 28.02.2014 an amount of Rs.11,037/is outstanding. The amount paid by Suit No. 996/14 M/s True Link Finance Ltd. Vs. Vinay & Ors Page 3of 7 defendant no. 1 was Rs.6340/ so the outstanding amount was Rs.8900/ and over due interest till 28.02.2014 was Rs.2137/.
7. Hence, the present suit.
Court held as under:
8. The plaintiff has established its case as the defendants did not contest the matter and the entire testimony of PW1 is unrebutted. Further, there is nothing on the file to suggest the the contrary.
9. The liability of both the defendants is coextensive as defendant no. 2 has stood as the guarantor to the transaction executed by defendant no. 1.
10. Though, interest of 2.5% per annum has been agreed to be stipulated rate of interest, however, this court finds the rate so stipulated as a measure for deterrence against any breach. This court considers the rate as exorbitant for pendente lite and future interest. This court adjudicates 10% per annum as reasonable interest in the present circumstances.
11. In light of the evidence on record, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants to the extent that the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.11,037/ from the defendants along with interest at Suit No. 996/14 M/s True Link Finance Ltd. Vs. Vinay & Ors Page 6of 7 the rate 10% per annum from filing of the present suit till realization along with costs.
Case Reference- M/S True Link Finance Ltd vs Sh. Vinay
IN THE COURT OF Ms TANVI KHURANA, CIVIL JUDGE1 (South)
SAKET COURTS NEW DELHI
×
