Bangalore District Court
M/S. Matrix Cellular vs Murali Lakshmana Rao on 17 December, 2016
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, (SCCH-16)
AT BANGALORE
PRESENT: SRI. SATISH J.BALI,
B.Com., LL.M.,
X Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes
(SCCH-16) Bangalore.
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF DECEMBER 2016
S.C No.737/2016
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 - 560 095.
Represented by its Executive
Mr. Nazeer.
(Sri Kashyap N. Naik,
Advocate)
Vs.
DEFENDANT: : Murali Lakshmana Rao,
No.3/1, 114/2, Kaveri
Nagar, Kathriguppe,
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Bangalore - 560 085.
(Exparte)
Date of Institution : 29-04-2016
of suit
Nature of the suit : Recovery of money.
2 S.C.No.737/2016
SCH-16
Date of the :
commencement of 14-12-2016
recording of the
evidence
Date on which the : 17-12-2016
Judgment was
pronounced
: YEARS MONTHS DAYS
Total duration 00 07 19
JUDGEMENT
The Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.14,289/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of suit till its realization.
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as under:
The plaintiff is a company carrying out the business of international mobile connections in the name and style of Matrix Cellular (International) Services Private Limited having its head office at New Delhi. The suit transaction relates to one of its branches situated at Koramangala under the agreement No.D177807. The defendant applied for an international mobile service from the plaintiff firm. As per the application of the defendant, the said mobile service was availed by the defendant. It is found that the defendant was due of Rs.14,289/- which was not paid in spite of several demands. The legal notice was issued on 3 S.C.No.737/2016 SCH-16 13.12.2014 to repay the said amount. The defendant has not headed the request and in spite of service of the said notice, the defendant did not cleared the dues. Hence, the present suit.
3. The defendant in spite of service of summons by RPAD, did not appear before the court. Hence, he was placed exparte.
4. The Power of Attorney holder of plaintiff firm was examined as PW-1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.6.
5. Heard the arguments and perused the materials on record.
6. The following points that would arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendant availed international mobile services under agreement No.D177807 and found due of Rs.14,289/-?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed in the suit?
3. What Order or Decree?
7. By considering the evidence on record and because of my below discussed reasons, I answer the above points in the following:
Point No.1: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE Point No.2: PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE Point No.3: AS PER FINAL ORDER 4 S.C.No.737/2016 SCH-16 REASONS POINT No.1:
8. The authorized representative of the plaintiff company was examined as PW-1 and deposed in consonance with the plaint averments stating that the availment of international mobile services by the defendant under the agreement and due by the defendant. He has got marked the Board Resolution at Ex.P.1, Agreement at Ex.P.2, Bill dated 14.08.2012 for a period from 2.07.2012 to 01.08.2012 at Ex.P.3, Ledger account extract at Ex.P.4, Office copy of legal notice at Ex.P.5 and postal receipt at Ex.P.6.
9. From perusal of the Board resolution at Ex.P.1, it appears that PW-1 was authorized to depose on behalf of the plaintiff company. The agreement at Ex.P.2 is vital document under which the defendant availed international mobile service from the plaintiff firm. The bill at Ex.P.3 reveals that the defendant has availed the mobile services of plaintiff firm, Ex.P.4 statement of account reveals that as on 21.09.2013 defendant was due of Rs.14,289/-. The legal notice was issued as per Ex.P.5 on 13.12.2014 through registered post. The postal receipt is as per Ex.P.6.
10. Ex.P.2 reveals that the defendant availed international 5 S.C.No.737/2016 SCH-16 mobile service from the plaintiff firm and he made calls as could be seen from call list at Ex.P.3, the Ex.P.4 reveals that as on 13.09.2014 defendant found due of Rs.14,289/- for which legal notice as per Ex.P.5 was issued, inspite of which defendant has not paid the said amount. Hence, the above said oral as well as documentary evidence makes it clear that defendant has availed mobile service from plaintiff firm and found due of Rs.14,289/-. It is to be noted that the defendant has not replied to the notice at Ex.P.5. The summons issued to the defendant was returned with an endorsement not claimed which itself makes clear that defendant had admitted the claim of the plaintiff firm. If at all the defendant did not availed the mobile service from the plaintiff firm, he ought to have appeared before the court and contested the claim of the plaintiff firm. By remaining exparte in spite of service of summons, the defendant has indirectly admitted the claim of the plaintiff firm. Absolutely there are no contra materials to disbelieve the oral as well as documentary evidence placed by the plaintiff firm. Hence, it can be said to come to the conclusion that defendant by availing the mobile service from the plaintiff firm is due of Rs.14,289/- and accordingly I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
6 S.C.No.737/2016
SCH-16 POINT No.2:
11. The plaintiff firm has claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of due till actual realization. But, there is no document to show that the defendant had agreed to repay the said amount with interest at 18%. Ex.P.2 is silent on the said aspect. Hence, in the absence of any materials, it is just and necessary to award interest at the rate of 9% per annum which has to be paid from the date of due i.e., on 01.10.2014 till date of today and future interest of 6% from date of suit till realization.
Accordingly, this point is answered Partly in the affirmative.
POINT No.3:
12. For the forgoing discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the Plaintiff is hereby partly decreed with costs.
The Defendant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.14,289/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 21.09.2013 till the date of decree. Defendant is also liable to pay above sum with future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from date of decree till actual realization. 7 S.C.No.737/2016
SCH-16 Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this 17th day of December 2016) (SATISH.J.BALI), X Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff:
PW1 Sri Nazeer List of documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiff:
Ex.P1 Board Resolution
Ex.P2 Original Agreement
Ex.P3 Bill dated 14.08.2012 for a period of 02.07.2012
to 01.08.2012
Ex.P4 Ledger Account Extract
Ex.P5 Office copy of Legal Notice dtd: 13.12.2014
Ex.P6 Postal receipt
List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendant:
None List of documents exhibited on behalf of defendant:
Nil (SATISH.J.BALI), X Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes Bangalore.