This order addresses an Original Application for recovery of a vehicle loan defaulting amount. The Debts Recovery Tribunal reviewed evidence, recognized a partial recovery via vehicle sale, and adjudicated the remaining liability.
The Defendant ordered to pay Rs. 24,54,831/- plus future interest at 7.65% p.a. and costs; Recovery Certificate issued.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 1lTH DAY OF FEBRUARY'2025
PRESENT: sRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.388 ot 2024
Between:
Punjab National Bank, Malakpet branch, Hyderabad, Telangana State. Represented by its Chief Manager
Applicant
VERSUS
SmtDeva rashettyKavitha, w/o PeddaVen kateshwarlu Devarashetty, aged 48 years, Occ: housewife, female. R/o H.No.23-38, 201, A btoct, LaxmiAmbica Residency, Kothapet, Rangareddy, Hyderabad - 5OO O3S.
Defendant
Counsel for the pa rties: For the Applicant Mrs. N.M. Shiny Mounika For the Defendant Ex pa rte
ORDER
(oA. No.388/202a)
01.05.2024 till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated vehicle as described in the schedule to OA.
2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant avaired vehicre roan for a sum of Rs.25.00 rakhs for purchase of MG ZSEV Erectric Vehicre 2022 and the same was hypothecated to the Appricant bank as security for the payment of loan. The defendant executed acceptance letter dated 26.07.2022, demand promissory note and undertaking in favour of the Appricant bank. The defendant agreed to repay the loan by way of EMI of Rs.29,875/- with an interest @7.650/o p.a with monthly rests. After availing the loan facility, the defendant failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the 02.05.2024. Inspite of severar requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.
himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are
marked as Ex.A.1 to 4.72. The Applicant bank filed a part satisfaction me that the hypothecated vehicle was soldon 26.rt. of Rs.16,6O,OOO/- was adjusted
to the rt
1 1 rgg 2p5
k.};rut@
(oA. No.38s/2024)
entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant as
prayed for?
B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs. as under: The Defendant is riabre to pay to the Appricant Bank a totar sum of Rs.24,54,831/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Eight hundred and thirty one only) with future interest @ 7.650/o p.afrom 0t.05.2024 till the date of realization LESS a sum of Rs.16,6o.OOO/_ realized by sale of hypothecated vehicle;
(oA.No.38s/2024)
of receipt of order.
(Dictated to the p.A_., transcnbed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1lti day of re6, zozs)
sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER
crvYffi lssl,-Reglrtrur oiu,nYoentaart
4
3 issues framed by the court
Is the applicant bank entitled to recover the outstanding loan amount and future interest against the defendant who failed to repay an electric vehicle loan?
Has the applicant bank substantiated its claim of realizing a portion of the debt through the sale of the hypothecated vehicle?
Whether the defects in the application employery (OA No.388/2024) are fatal to the recovery claim?
Punjab National Bank
Gummadi GOPICHAND
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
