Bangalore District Court
Dtdc Courier And Cargo Ltd vs M/S. One Solution Service on 27 April, 2015
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 27th day of April 2015
S.C.No.51/2015
PLAINTIFF: DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd.,
No.269, 1st Main,
Albert Victor Road,
Chamarajpet,
Bangalore-560018.
Represented by its
Zonal Admin and Regional
HR Manager,
(By pleader Sri DNA)
Vs.
DEFENDANT/S : M/s. One Solution Service, (NF-287)
Office at BC-274, Mangolpuri
Industrial area, Phase-2,
Delhi-110034.
Repd by its Prop. Mr.Jainender Batolia,
S/o Sri.Jagadish Chander.
And also at;
Mr.Jainender Batolia,
S/o Jagadish Chander,
R-990, Jwala puri,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi.
(Exparte)
SCCH-14 2 SC No.51/2015
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 16.04.2015
recording of the evidence:
Date on which the Judgment 27.04.2015
was pronounced:
Year/s Month/s Days
Total duration: 00 03 08
Additional Judge
Note: - The names and descriptions of all the plaintiff's and
defendants as stated in the plaints should be mentioned.
SCCH-14 3 SC No.51/2015
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 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 franchise of the plaintiff company. Upon the request, a franchise-ship was given to the defendant on 28.02.2013. The defendant has been carrying out the business as per the franchisee agreement. The defendant ought to have made the transshipment charges/service charges/ payments 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.25,481/- to the plaintiff. He has failed to make the payment of said amount inspite of repeated requests, demands. Therefore, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice dated;11.08.2014 to the defendant posted on 12.08.2014 demanding a sum of Rs.25,481/-. The notice sent to the office address is returned with shara 'addressee left' and notice sent to residential address of the proprietor of 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.25,481/- 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 SCCH-14 4 SC No.51/2015 Rs.25,481/- with interest @ 24% pa, from the date of due till realization.
3. The summons were not served upon the defendant in the ordinary course. Hence, summons was issued to him by RPAD which returned as party absent. The same is held as deemed service. The defendant remained absent and hence, he is placed exparte. Then, the plaintiff has examined his Zonal Admin 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 Admin and Regional HR Manager as PW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to 8. The defendant remained exparte.
8. PW.1 Rama Murthy is the Zonal Admin and Regional HR Manager of the plaintiff and he has reiterated entire averments of the plaint and deposed about the contract between the plaintiff SCCH-14 5 SC No.51/2015 and the defendant, about service rendered by the plaintiff, about maintaining account in the name of the defendant and outstanding 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.25,481/- with interest @ 24% pa., from the date of due till realization. Hence, he has sought for passing of decree against the defendant for Rs.25,481/- 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 Franchise Agreement, Statement of account with certificate, Copy of certificate incorporation, 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 has availed franchise of the plaintiff, that the defendant was in due of Rs.25,481/- as on 31.12.2013, that the defendant has failed to make the payment of amount inspite of demand and legal notice. Franchise Agreement at Ex.P1 discloses that the defendant is liable to pay penalty of Rs.2% per month 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 SCCH-14 6 SC No.51/2015 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 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 from the date of suit. Hence, I hold that the defendant is liable to pay Rs.25,481/- with interest @ 24% p.a., from the date of suit till realization. Consequently, I answer the point Partly in affirmative.
9. 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.25,481/-with interest @ 24% 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 27th day of April 2015.) (Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes, BANGALORE.SCCH-14 7 SC No.51/2015
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 - Franchise Agreement
Ex.P2 - Statement of account with certificate
Ex.P3 - Copy of certificate in corporation
Ex.P4 - Copy of legal notice
Ex.P5 - Postal Receipt (2 in nos)
Ex.P6 - Postal Cover
Ex.P7 - Postal acknowledgement
Ex.P8 - Letter of Authority
Defendant's Nil
XVI ADDL.JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.