Bangalore District Court
M/S Matrix Cellular (International) vs Harish on 28 September, 2016
Before the VII Addl. Judge MACT and XXXII ACMM,
Court of Small Causes at Bangalore
(SCCH-3)
DATED THIS THE 28th September 2016
PRESENT:
Smt.GOMATI RAGHAVENDRA
LL.M, D.I.P.R, D.C.L
VII Addl. Judge & XXXII ACMM,
Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
S.C.No.1091/2016
Plaintiff M/s Matrix Cellular (International)
Services Private Limited, a company
registered under the Companies Act,
1956 and having its Branch Office at
No.95, 17th B Main Road,
Koramangala, Bengaluru-560 095.
Represented by its Executive,
Mr.Nazeer.
(Shri Kashyap N.Naik, Advocate)
V/s.
Defendant Harish,
S/o Subramani Kanganahalli
Muniswamy,
Residing at: No.116/42,
6th A main, Appalah Swamy
LYT Subramanyapura,
Uthrahalli,
Bangalore - 570 061.
(Exparte)
Date of institution of the suit: 24.6.2016
2 S.C. No.1091/2016
SCCH-3
Nature of the suit (suit on pronote,
suit for declaration and possession
suit for injunction etc.): Recovery of money
Date of commencement of
recording of the evidence: 26.9.2016
Date on which the judgment
is pronounced : 28.9.2016
Total duration: Years Month/s Days
0 3 2
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff company against the defendant for recovery of money of Rs.11,451/- with future interest at 18% p.a. from the date of suit till its realization.
2. The plaintiff case in brief is as under; The plaintiff company carrying its business of International Mobile Connections in the name and style of Matrix Cellular (International) Services. It is pleaded that the defendant had applied for International Mobile Connection in Bengaluru and procured the standard application form containing the terms and conditions regarding the usage of the said connection. After being satisfied about the terms and 3 S.C. No.1091/2016 SCCH-3 conditions, the defendant has agreed to hire a mobile connection and that he has read and understood the terms and conditions of the agreement form and agreed to abide by them. Thereafter, several bills were raised on the basis of the defendant's usage. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendant has failed to pay a sum of Rs.11,451/- though he has agreed to clear all the dues charged for the rental/usage of the mobile connection under the said agreement.
3. The plaintiff company in its plaint further pleaded that he has got issued a legal notice dated 13.12.2014 and the said notice was duly served on the defendant calling upon him for payment of the due amount with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. The defendant has not chosen to reply the said notice nor complied the demand of the plaintiff company. The defendant is obligated for the services rendered by the plaintiff company. Thereby the plaintiff company has constrained to file the instant suit against the defendant.
4 S.C. No.1091/2016
SCCH-3
4. The cause of action for the suit arose on 19.09.2012 when the defendant has entered into the agreement for providing international mobile connection and the defendant has become due and failed to pay the bills and on 13.12.2014 on which date the legal notice was got issued within the jurisdiction of this court and prays for decree the suit.
5. In response of the suit summons, the defendant did not appear nor file the written statement as he was placed exparte.
6. The plaintiff company in order to prove the plaint averments has examined its Authorized Signatory, as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P6.
7. Heard the arguments on plaintiff's side.
8. The points that arise for court consideration are as under:
1) Whether the plaintiff company is entitled for the relief as prayed for?
2) What order or decree?5 S.C. No.1091/2016
SCCH-3
9. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the affirmative.
Point No.2: As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
10. Point No.1:
The plaintiff has filed his affidavit as his chief-
examination as PW1. The affidavit evidence of PW1 is nothing but replica of plaint averments. In support of his oral evidence has produced the documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. On perusal of Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 reveals that the defendant has took the internal mobile connection and has utilized the said connection and failed to pay the bill amount of Rs.11,451/-. Inspite of legal notice he did not pay the due amount. Thereby, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit against the defendant. If at all, the defendant has not utilised the mobile connection from the plaintiff company he would have resisted the claim of the plaintiff company. That itself is clear that the defendant had applied for international mobile connection in 6 S.C. No.1091/2016 SCCH-3 Bengaluru and procured the standard customer agreement form containing the terms and conditions regarding the usage of the said connection, after being satisfied by the terms and conditions has signed the form and used the mobile connection and he has due for Rs.11,451/-. But however, the rate of interest claimed by the plaintiff at 18% p.a. appears to be exhorbitant. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials on record, it is just and proper to grant 9% interest p.a. instead of 18%. The plaintiff company has proved its case through oral and documentary evidence. Hence, I am of the opinion that the Point No.1 is in the Affirmative.
11. Point No.2:
In view of my answer to the point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff company is decreed with costs. The defendant is hereby directed to pay the decreetal amount of Rs.11,451/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to 7 S.C. No.1091/2016 SCCH-3 the plaintiff company from the date of suit till its realization within two months from the date of this order. In failure of which, the plaintiff is at liberty to take the legal proceedings against the defendant.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of September 2016).
(GOMATI RAGHAVENDRA) VII Addl. Judge & XXXII ACMM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiffs:
PW1 Sri.Nazeer 26.09.2016 List of the documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiffs:
Ex.P1 Board resolution
Ex.P2 Customer Agreement form
Ex.P3 Bill amounting to Rs.14,451.01
Ex.P4 Account ledger
Ex.P5 Copy of legal notice
Ex.P6 Postal receipt
8 S.C. No.1091/2016
SCCH-3
List of the witnesses examined on behalf of defendants:
Nil List of the documents marked on behalf of defendants:
Nil (GOMATI RAGHAVENDRA) VII Addl. Judge & XXXII ACMM, Bengaluru.