Bangalore District Court
M/S Dtdc Courier And Cargo Ltd vs M/S. U.S Enterprises on 12 January, 2016
C.R.P. 67] Government of Karnataka
Form No. 9
(Civil) TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS IN SUITS
Title Sheet for
Judgment in IN THE COURT OF THE SMALL CAUSES AT BANGALORE
Suits PRESENT: Basavaraj Chengti., B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl)
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
Dated this the 12th day of January 2016
S.C.No.50/2015
PLAINTIFF: M/S DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd.,
DTDC House No.269,
Albert Victor Road,
Ist main, Chamrajpet,
Bangalore-560 018.
Represented by its Zonal Manager
and Regional HR Manager,
Mr.T.S.Ramamurthy,
(By pleader Sri DNA)
Vs.
DEFENDANT/S : M/s. U.S ENTERPRISES, (NF-258)
Office at 2/52, 2/2, House No.324,
Kamalpur Majra,
Burari Chowk,
Delhi-110084,
Represented by its Partners
Mr.Uday Kumar Thankur,
S/o Sri. Shatrughan Thankur and
Mr.Shambhunath Jha,
S/o Bharat Jha.
And also at:
Mr.Uday Kumar Thankur,
And Mr.Shambhunath Jha,
Both are residing at B-2837,
Gali No-70, Sant Nagar,
Burari, Bharat Jha,
Delhi-110084.
(Exparte)
SCCH-14 2 SC No.50/2015
Date of institution of the suit: 19.01.2015
Nature of the suit (suit on pronote,
suit for declaration and possession Money suit
suit for injunction, etc.,):
Date of the commencement of 07.01.2016
recording of the evidence:
Date on which the Judgment 12.01.2016
was pronounced:
Year/s Month/s Days
Total duration: 00 11 23
Additional Judge
SCCH-14 3 SC No.50/2015
JUDGMENT
This is a small cause suit for recovery of money.
2. Brief averments of the plaint are as under:
The plaintiff is a public limited company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956 and having its registered and regional offices at Bangalore. The core activity of the plaintiff is courier and carriage of cargo transshipment of documents and other parcels throughout India and abroad. The defendant's company has approached the plaintiff company and sought for his franchise. Upon the request, a franchise-ship was given to the defendant on 20.03.2012. The defendant has been carrying out the business as per the franchisee agreement. The defendant ought to have made the payment of the transshipment charges/service charges to the plaintiff company on or before 7th of every month for the services rendered by the plaintiff for the preceding month. As on 30.12.2013, the defendant was liable to pay Rs.22,450/- to the plaintiff. He has failed to make the payment of said amount inspite of repeated requests and demands. The defendant has also stopped branch activity abruptly and due to which the plaintiff underwent huge hardship as his customer's consignments were held up in the office of the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice dated 11.08.2014 to the defendant and posted it on 12.08.2014 demanding a sum of Rs.22,450/-. The notice sent to the office address is returned with shara 'addressee left' and notice sent to residential address of the defendant was duly served. In spite of it, the defendant neither replied the notice nor cleared the outstanding amount to the plaintiff. The defendant is liable to pay Rs.22,450/-SCCH-14 4 SC No.50/2015
with interest @24% pa, from the date of due till actual payment is made. Hence, the plaintiff has filed this suit for a Judgment and Decree against the defendant for Rs.22,450/- with interest @ 24% pa, from the date of due till realization.
3. In spite of service of summons by RPAD, the defendant remained absent and hence, he is placed exparte. Then, the plaintiff has examined his Zonal Manger and Regional HR Manager as PW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to 8.
4. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
5. Now, the points arise for my consideration are as under:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim?
2. What order or decree?
6. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1 - Partly in affirmative Point No.2 - As per final order for the following:
REASONS
7. POINT No.1:- In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has examined his Zonal Manger and Regional HR Manager as PW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to 8. The defendant remained exparte.
8. PW.1 Ramamurthy is the Zonal Manger and Regional HR Manager of the plaintiff and he has reiterated entire averments of the plaint and deposed about the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, about service rendered by the plaintiff, about maintaining account in the name of the defendant and outstanding SCCH-14 5 SC No.50/2015 amount therein, about issuance of legal notice demanding the defendant to pay the outstanding amount and failure of the defendant to reply or comply the notice, about liability of the defendant to pay Rs.22,450/- with interest @ 24% pa., from the date of due till realization. Hence, he has sought for passing of decree against the defendant for Rs.22,450/- with interest @24% p.a., from date of suit till realization. His evidence remained unchallenged. There is nothing on record to disbelieve his evidence.
9. The plaintiff has produced Copy of certificate of incorporation, Franchise Agreement, Statement of account with certificate, Copy of legal notice, Postal Receipts, Postal Cover, Postal acknowledgement and Letter of Authority to support the oral evidence of PW.1 which are marked as Ex.P1 to 8. These documents corroborate the evidence of PW.1 and reveal that the defendant was appointed as franchisee of the plaintiff, that the defendant was in due of Rs.22,450/- as on 30.12.2013, that the defendant has failed to make the payment of amount inspite of demand and legal notice. Franchise Agreement at Ex.P2 discloses that the defendant is liable to pay interest @18% per annum for non payment of amount. Oral evidence of PW.1 and contents of Ex.P1 to 8 substantiate the averments of the plaint. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff. The claim of the plaintiff is as per agreement and statement of account. There is nothing to disbelieve the entries made the statement of account. The defendant remained exparte. He has not even replied the legal notice issued by the plaintiff prior to filing of the suit. Therefore, it cannot be believed that the defendant has paid any amount towards his dues. The transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant is SCCH-14 6 SC No.50/2015 commercial transaction. The defendant is bound by the terms of agreement. The plaintiff has sought for awarding interest from the date of due, but I am inclined to grant interest @ 18% p.a., from the date of suit. Hence, I hold that the defendant is liable to pay Rs.22,450/- with interest @ 18% p.a., from the date of suit till realization. Consequently, I answer the point partly in affirmative.
10. POINT No.2 : In view of above discussion and finding, I pass the following :
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with cost.
The defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff Rs.22,450/-with interest @ 18% p.a., from the date of suit till realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 12th day of January 2016.) (BASAVARAJ CHENGTI) XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes, BANGALORE.SCCH-14 7 SC No.50/2015
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff :
PW-1 T.S.Rama Murthy Witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants: NIL.
Documents exhibited on behalf of the plaintiffs:
Ex.P1 - Copy of certificate in corporation Ex.P2 - Franchise Agreement Ex.P3 - Statement of account with certificate Ex.P4 - Copy of legal notice Ex.P5 - Postal Receipt (2 in nos) Ex.P6 - Postal Cover Ex.P7 - Postal acknowledgement (in torn condition) Ex.P8 - Letter of Authority Defendant's Nil XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes, BANGALORE.SCCH-14 8 SC No.50/2015
Dt.12.01.2016 P-DNA D-Exparte For Judgment Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate judgment.
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with cost.
The defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff Rs.22,450/-with interest @ 18% p.a., from the date of suit till realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes, BANGALORE.SCCH-14 9 SC No.50/2015
DECREE S.C.C.H.NO.14 IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES COURT, AT BANGALORE.
S.C.No.50/2015 PLAINTIFF: M/S DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd., DTDC House No.269, Albert Victor Road, Ist main, Chamrajpet, Bangalore-560 018.
Represented by its Zonal Manager and Regional HR Manager, Mr.T.S.Ramamurthy, (By pleader Sri DNA) Vs. DEFENDANT/S : M/s. U.S ENTERPRISES, (NF-258) Office at 2/52, 2/2, House No.324, Kamalpur Majra, Burari Chowk, Delhi-110084, Represented by its Partners Mr.Uday Kumar Thankur, S/o Sri. Shatrughan Thankur and Mr.Shambhunath Jha, S/o Bharat Jha.
And also at:
Mr.Uday Kumar Thankur, And Mr.Shambhunath Jha, Both are residing at B-2837, Gali No-70, Sant Nagar, Burari, Bharat Jha, Delhi-110084.
(Exparte) CLAIM: Suit filed on prays for directing defendant to pay a sum of Rs. with interest % , costs and such other reliefs.SCCH-14 10 SC No.50/2015
This suit coming on for final disposal before Sri.Basavaraj Chengti., XVI ADDL.JUDGE, CSC, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt Advocate, for the plaintiff and Sri/Smt Advocate, for the defendant.
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with cost.
The defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff Rs.22,450/-with interest @ 18% p.a., from the date of suit till realization.
And it is further ordered and decreed that defendant do pay to the plaintiff sum of Rupees being the amount of costs incurred in this suit, as by memorandum annexed with interest thereon at per cent per annum from this date unto the date of realization.
[ Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this Day of 2016 REGISTRAR, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, Bangalore.SCCH-14 11 SC No.50/2015
MORANDUM OF COST INCURRED IN THIS SUIT By the Plaintiff Defendant Court fee on plaint Court fee on power Court fee on exhibits Service of process + Postal charges Commissioner's fees Pleaders fee __________________________ Total of Rs. ___________________________ Amount payable by the defendant to the plaintiff is Rs.
Decree Drafted Scrutinised by
REGISTRAR,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE.
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR
SCCH-14 12 SC No.50/2015