Bangalore District Court
M/S Matrix Cellular (International) vs Kavitha Raj on 27 March, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL.SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE BENGALURU (SCCH-24)
PRESENT: Smt. ZAIBUNNISA
B.Com.LL.B
XXII Additional Small Causes Judge
& Member MACT, Bengaluru.
Dated This the 27th day of March, 2017.
S.C.No:1224/2016
PLAINTIFF M/s Matrix Cellular (International)
services Pvt. Limited, a company
registered under the Companies
Act, 1956 and having its Branch
Office at No.95, 17th B Main Road,
Koramangala, Bangalore-560095.
Represented by its Executive
Mr. Nazeer.
(Repted By: M/s Agraa Legal,
Advocates, Bengaluru).
VS.
DEFENDANT Kavitha Raj,
D/o Sakawakara Ramaiha
Vasudev Reddy,
Aged about 44 years,
Kudlu Village,
Hosur Road, Madiwala Post Office,
Bangalore-560068.
(By Sri. B.S. Shivakumar,
Advocate, Bengaluru.
XXII Addl. Small Causes Judge,
Bengaluru.
2 SCCH-24.
S.C.1224/2016
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of money.
2. The case of the plaintiff is as under:
The plaintiff alleges that, it is a company involved in the field of telecommunications and is carrying out the business of providing International Mobile Connections in the name and style of 'Matrix Cellular (International) Services limited' having its head office at New Delhi, incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 and having its branch office at Koramangala, Bangalore. It is further alleged that, it is the leading telecom solution provider for Indian Travellers going abroad and has won several awards to that effect. The plaintiff through its commercial tie-ups with local telecommunication service providers abroad, allows Indians Travelling abroad to use a local Sim-Card of the country to which they are travelling thereby avoiding to pay international roaming charges that would be chargeable on Indian Sim-Cards being used at abroad.
3 SCCH-24.
S.C.1224/2016 Upon the signing of a customer agreement form by potential customers, the plaintiff provides its services and thereafter raises bills/invoices in respect of the services consumed by the customers.
3. The plaintiff has alleged that, the defendant had applied for an International Mobile Connection (Mobile Sim-card) in Bangalore and produced the standard Customer Agreement Form containing the Terms and Conditions regarding the usage of said connection. After being satisfied about the terms and conditions, the defendant agreed to hire a mobile connection and categorically signed a statement that she has read and understood the terms and conditions of the Agreement Form and agreed to abide by them. The said agreement states that, the agreement shall not cease to be in effect until fully satisfied by both parties and all dues are paid to it by the customer/defendant. The agreement continues to be in force until the defendant has cleared all her dues and all amounts payable to the plaintiff for the services already rendered by the plaintiff.
4 SCCH-24.
S.C.1224/2016
4. It is alleged that, based on the number of calls made, messages sent and mobile data consumed by the defendant during her time at abroad, certain bills were periodically raised on the defendant and sent to her electronically also physically to the address stated in the Agreement form. In spite of several requests and demands, the defendant has failed to pay a sum of Rs.16,892/- despite the defendant having specifically and expressly agreed to clear all dues charged for the rental / usage of the mobile connection under the said agreement. Thereafter, the plaintiff through its counsel got issued a legal notice to the defendant to her address on 20.01.2015 and it is duly served upon the defendant, thereby calling upon her to make the payments of the above stated outstanding amount along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. However, the defendant has neither chosen to reply to the said notice nor complied with the demands made in the notice. The defendant is obligated under the terms of the agreement to make payments for the services rendered by the plaintiff 5 SCCH-24.
S.C.1224/2016 company. Hence, the plaintiff has been constrained to file this suit for recovery of the amount of Rs.16,892/- due from the defendant.
5. In response to the suit summons, the defendant has appeared before this Court and resisted the suit filed by the plaintiff by filing her detailed written statement.
6. The defendant has contended that, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. That, the representative of the plaintiff company who delivered the sim was himself collecting the payments. Accordingly the defendant has paid the amount to the representative of the plaintiff company and there is no due on the part of the defendant to the plaintiff company. The plaintiff company has not maintained the accounts with respect to the transaction with the defendant properly and therefore the claim of the plaintiff is not admitted. The defendant is not bound to pay any interest to the plaintiff company. The suit is barred by limitations. For all these reasons prayed to dismiss the suit petition.
6 SCCH-24.
S.C.1224/2016
7. To substantiate the case made out by the plaintiff, the authorized signatory of the plaintiff has filed his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. On behalf of the plaintiff, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 are marked. Thereafter plaintiff closed his side evidence.
8. In order to rebut the evidence so placed on record by the plaintiff, the defendant has not adduced evidence before this court but confronted and got marked a receipt as Ex.D.1 during the course of cross examination of PW.1.
9. Heard the arguments of both the sides. Written arguments filed by the defendant. Perused the materials placed on record.
10. The points that would arise for my consideration are as under :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim together with interest as claimed ?
2. What order or decree?
11. My findings on the above points are as under:
POINT NO.1 - In the Negative.
7 SCCH-24.
S.C.1224/2016
POINT NO.2 - As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
POINT No.1:-
12. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.16,892/- with interest and cost. It is contended that, the plaintiff is leading telecom solution provider for Indian travelers going abroad. The plaintiff through its commercial tie- ups with local telecommunication service providers abroad allows Indians travelling abroad to use a local sim card of the country to which they are traveling thereby avoiding to pay international roaming charges that would be chargeable on Indian sim-cards being used abroad. Upon signing of a customer agreement form by potential customers, the plaintiff provides its services and thereafter raises bills/ invoices in respect of the service consumed by the customers. As per the services, the defendant had applied for an international mobile connection (mobile sim-card) in Bangalore and procured the standard customer agreement form containing the 8 SCCH-24.
S.C.1224/2016 terms and conditions regarding the usage of the said connection. After being satisfied about the terms and conditions, the defendant agreed to hire a mobile connection and categorically signed a statement that she has read and understood the terms and conditions of the agreement form and agreed to abide by them. The said agreement states that the agreement shall not ceased to be in effect until fully satisfied by both parties and all dues are paid to it by the customer / defendant. The agreement therefore continues to be in force until the defendant has cleared all her dues and all amounts payable to the plaintiff for the services already rendered by the plaintiff. Thereafter, based on the number of calls made, messages sent and mobile date consumed by the defendant during her time at abroad, certain bills were periodically raised on the defendant and sent to her electronically and also physically to the address stated in the agreement form. However, inspite of several requests and demands, the defendant has failed to pay a sum of Rs.16,892/-.
9 SCCH-24.
S.C.1224/2016
13. Whereas the defendant has specifically stated that, the representative of the plaintiff company who deliver the sim was himself collecting the payments. Accordingly the defendant has paid the amount to the representative of the plaintiff company and there is no due on the part of the defendant to the plaintiff company. The plaintiff company has not maintained the accounts with respect to the transaction with the defendant properly.
14. In order to prove the plaint averments, Authorised Signatory of the plaintiff has got examined himself as P.W.1 by filing his affidavit in lieu of his chief- examination which is in terms with the plaint averments. He has produced Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. Out of which, Ex.P.1, the Board Resolution, Ex.P.2, Agreement form, Ex.P.3, Bill, Ex.P.4, Ledger Account. Ex.P.5, Legal notice and Ex.P.6, postal receipt. During the course of cross- examination, he deposed that, he knows all the information about collecting agents of his company and there are 5 collection agents in the company. He further 10 SCCH-24.
S.C.1224/2016 deposed that, he is working in the company since one and half year. He further deposed that, he knows the previous agents' information, and the said information is given to him by his previous officer. He admitted that, "¸Àa£ï JA§ GzÉÄÁåÃV £ÀªÀÄä PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è EzÁÝgÉ. ¤¦.4 gÀ ªÉÄðgÀĪÀ ¸À» ¸Àa£ï CªÀgÀzÁÝVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. FUÀ ¸ÁQëUÉ vÉÆÃj¹zÀ gÀ¹Ã¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr CzÀgÀ ªÉÄðgÀĪÀ §gÀºÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸À» ¸ÀjAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ CzÀÄ £ÀªÄÀ ä PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄzÉÝà JAzÀÄ M¦àPÉÆAqÀ PÁgÀt ¸ÀzÀj gÀ¹Ã¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤r.1 JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ."
He further deposed that, "¤r.1 gÀ Cr ¥ÀæwªÁ¢¬ÄAzÀ §gÀ¨ÉÃPÁVzÀÝ ºÀtªÉ¯Áè £ÀªÀÄä PÀA¥À¤UÉ ¸ÀAzÁAiÀĪÁVzÀÝgÀÆ PÀÆqÀ £ÁªÀÅ F ¸ÀļÀÄî zÁªÉ ºÀÆrzÉÝÃªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë ¸ÀzÀj ¤r.1 gÀ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼£À ÀÄß PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ zÁR¯ÉU¼À ÉÆA¢UÉ vÁ¼É ªÀiÁr £ÉÆÃr ºÉüÀ¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ"
After examination of PW.1, plaintiff closed its side evidence. Defendant submits as she has no other evidence except Ex.D.1. On perusal of records produced by the parties it is cleared that defendant is not disputing the agent and transaction taken place between herself and the plaintiff company but disputing that she is in due of Rs.16,890/- to the plaintiff towards the services provided to her by the company.
11 SCCH-24.
S.C.1224/2016
15. After the above said cross examination the plaintiff company has not produced any materials so as to rebut the receipt produced by the defendant at Ex.D.1. Said Ex.D.1 discloses that, defendant has paid a sum of Rs.16,890/- in cash as full payment to the plaintiff company on 07.10.2013 itself. As per the admissions given by the PW.1 it is crystal clear that, the defendant has paid the amount due to the plaintiff through authorized agent of the plaintiff company on 07.10.2013 as per receipt produced by the defendant which is marked at Ex.D.1. Ex.D.1 is not at all disputed by the plaintiff. During the cross examination, PW.1 admitted that Ex.D.1 bears signature of Mr.Sachin who is working in his company. He also deposed in his cross- examination that, he has to verify the details of the said Ex.D.1 with the concerned registers of his company. But, this today plaintiff has not made any efforts to submit whether he has verified the details of Ex.D.1 with registers maintained by its company with respect to the alleged payment shown to be made by the defendant.
12 SCCH-24.
S.C.1224/2016 Therefore, it appears that, plaintiff has agreed and admitted Ex.D.1 and its contents in full form and defendant has paid and clear the dues what ever is outstanding towards her transaction with the plaintiff company. Thus, inview of the above said facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as claimed in the suit. Hence, point No.1 is answered in the Negative. POINT No.2:-
16. As the result of my foregoing reasons and discussions as stated therein, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
In result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
No costs.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 27th day of March, 2017).
(ZAIBUNNISA) XXII Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru.
13 SCCH-24.
S.C.1224/2016 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff :
PW.1 : Sri. Nazeer.
Documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 - Board Resolution. Ex.P.2 - Agreement. Ex.P.3 - Computer Generated Bill. Ex.P.4 - Account Ledger Extract. Ex.P.5 - Copy of Legal Notice. Ex.P.6 - Postal receipt.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant :
- Nil -
Documents marked on behalf of the Defendant :
Ex.D.1 - Receipt.
(ZAIBUNNISA) XXII Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru.