Bangalore District Court
M/S Matrix Cellular (International) vs Sri Sathya Prakash Mudaliar on 27 June, 2019
C.R.P.67] Government of Karnataka
Form No.9
(Civil) Title Sheet for
Judgement in
Suits
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, (SCCH-16)
AT BENGALURU
Present: Sri. Subramanya N., B.A.L, LL.B.,
X Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes
Bengaluru.
Date: on this the 27th June 2019
S.C No. 1252/2018
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,
Bengaluru - 560 095.
Represented by its Executive,
Mr. Mohan Kumar P.
(Sri Kapil Dixit, Advocate)
Vs.
Defendant Sri Sathya Prakash Mudaliar,
S/o Susainathan Melchure,
Aged about 48 years,
R/at No.11/1, 6th Street,
Near Police Station, Halasuru,
Bengaluru - 560 008.
(Exparte)
Date of Institution of suit: : 25-08-2018
Nature of the suit: : Recovery of money
2 (SCCH-16) S.C. 1252/2018
Date of commencement of :
recording of the evidence 19-06-2019
Date on which the Judgment : 27-06-2019
was pronounced
Total duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s
00 10 02
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has instituted this suit to recover money from the defendant together with interest.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiff is a company carrying on the business of providing international Mobile Connections in the name and style of Matrix Cellular Services Limited. The plaintiff through its commercial tie-ups with local telecommunication service providers allows Indians traveling abroad to use a local SIM-card of the country to which they are traveling in order to avoid payments of international roaming charges. The defendant initially had availed services of the plaintiff company in May- July 2016. So an account bearing No.1436776 was created. Upon bills being raised towards the services availed, he cleared the bills. Subsequently, he had planned a trip to Sri Lanka. So he purchased Sri Lanka specific SIM card under the agreement. Having gone through the terms and conditions he agreed to hire the SIM-card and availed services. Between 09-05-2016 to 15-05-2016 he traveled to Srilanka. Accordingly, plaintiff raised two different bills 3 (SCCH-16) S.C. 1252/2018 dated 16-05-2016 Rs.78,542/- and bill dated 16-06-2016 for Rs.5,433.75/- in respect of the usage of SIM-card, totally amounting to Rs.84,531.04/- together with late payment charges. In-spite of repeated demands, he failed to pay this amount. Therefore, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 14-07-2016 calling upon the defendant to make payment of the said amount with interest. However, he has not complied with the demand made therein. Hence, this suit had to be filed.
3. Notwithstanding the service of summons, defendant has not appeared before the court and therefore, he has been placed exparte.
4. To prove its case, plaintiff has examined its Executive as PW1, and got marked 7 documents.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
6. On hearing the arguments and on going through the materials on record, the following points arise for the determination of the court.
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that it has provided the service of International mobile connection to the defendant?
4 (SCCH-16) S.C. 1252/2018
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that a sum of Rs.84,531.04/- is due to be payable by the defendant?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim with interest?
4) What order or decree?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : In the Affirmative Point No.3 : In the Affirmative Point No.4 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
8. Point Nos.1 and 2:
These points are taken up together for common discussion for the sake of convenience.
9. A careful examination of the evidence goes to show that the testimony of PW-1 is nothing but replica of the plaint. Therefore, there is no need to reproduce what he has testified. The letter of authorization (Ex.P1) reveals that this witness has been authorized to give evidence in this case on behalf of the plaintiff. Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are bills raised by the plaintiff in respect of the usage of SIM-card by the defendant. Ex.P4 is the legal notice, whereby the defendant has been called upon to pay Rs.84,531.04/- being the service charge. In 5 (SCCH-16) S.C. 1252/2018 so far as the service of the notice is concerned there is no proof. However, as per Section 16 of the Evidence Act, it may be presumed that the notice has been sent to the addressee. It is evident from Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 that the plaintiff carries on the business of providing international mobile connections in the name of Matrix Cellular Services Ltd. These documents indicate that the defendant applied and took international mobile connection (mobile number 773346961). That the above said amount has been charged towards usage of the international mobile provided by the plaintiff is obvious from that document.
10. It is worthwhile to note that the defendant has not challenged and controverted the evidence of the plaintiff. I, therefore, do not find any reasons to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1 for it is fully corroborated by the documentary evidence. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has established and proved its case. As a consequence, both points are answered in the affirmative.
11. Point No.3:- As discussed above, the plaintiff has successfully proved its case. So therefore, it is obviously entitled to recover the amount due to it by the defendant. If the interest at rate of 18% is awarded, it would be reasonable. Hence, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to suit claim to the tune of Rs.84,531/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. Accordingly I answer point No.3 in the affirmative. 6 (SCCH-16) S.C. 1252/2018
12. Point No.4:
For the forgoing discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the Plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs.
It is ordered and decreed that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.84,531/- together with interest at 18% per annum from the date of suit till realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this 27th day of June 2019) (Subramanya N.), X Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff:
PW1 Sri Mohan Kumar P. List of documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiff:
Ex.P1 Authorization Letter
Ex.P2 & Two Bills
Ex.P3
Ex.P4 Legal Notice
Ex.P5 Confirmation Letter
7 (SCCH-16) S.C. 1252/2018
Ex.P6 Customer Agreement Form
Ex.P7 Certificate U/Sec. 65(b) of Evidence Act
List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendant:
None List of documents exhibited on behalf of defendant:
Nil (Subramanya N.), X Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.