The failure to provide substantive evidence of payment warrants affirmation of the trial court's decree for debt recovery.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The present appeal is preferred by the defendants assailing the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2023 in O.S. No. 1602/2019 on the file of 24^th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH6) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short). The Trial Court decreed the suit in part and held that defendants 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.8,76,353.37 to the plaintiff/bank along with interest @ 10.90% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till date and @ 6% until realization.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Though the respondent has been served, they have chosen to remain absent.

3. Brief facts : The suit was for recovery of money against defendants 1 and 2 for a sum of Rs.8,77,067.31 from the appellants/defendants arising out of a car loan availed to the tune of Rs.7,25,000/-. It was the case of the bank that the appellant defaulted in payment of EMIs, and as per the statement of account at Ex.P9, an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- remained unpaid along with interest.

4. The appellants/defendants in defence contended that defendant No.1 had paid a sum of Rs.3,91,000/- in addition to Rs.1,85,477.90 towards the loan account, and that the bank had wrongly adjusted the said amount of Rs.3,91,000/- towards the housing loan of his wife and the son without his authorization.

5. The Trial Court on considering Ex.P9, the statement of account, which unequivocally showed irregular payment and default and no entry to support the defendants version, observed that defendant No.1 failed to discharge burden of proving that he had paid an amount of Rs.3,91,000/- towards the car loan account. The Trial Court based on the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the plaintiff has proved that the defendants are liable to pay the suit amount and decreed the suit directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.8,76,353.37 with interest.

6. The primary contention of the appellants is that the appellants had paid more than 10 EMIs towards the car loan availed from the respondent-bank and, in addition a sum of Rs.3,91,000/- has been credited to his car loan account. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the appellants had paid substantial payments and that the sum of Rs.3,91,000/- had wrongly been paid by the appellants towards the car loan account.

7. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court calls for interference by this Court?

8. On careful examining of the material on record, it is evident that the appellants have failed to produce any substantive documentary evidence to support their contention. Other than mere assertion made that the cheques were issued and the sum of Rs.3,91,000/- was paid, the appellants have not produced any bank statement, cheque copy, acknowledgment or confirmation from the bank showing that the said amount was received and credited to the specific loan account in question. There is no documentary proof indicating that the payment, even if made was specifically towards the car loan account and not any other loan account. The fact remains that DW1 himself has admitted in his cross- examination that he has not produced any documents to prove that the sum of Rs.3,91,000/- was credited to the loan account.

9. The Trial Court on proper appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence has rightly concluded that the appellants have failed to discharge the burden of proving repayment beyond what is stated by the bank.

10. For the foregoing reasons, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the order