Bangalore District Court
M/S. Matrix Cellular vs Sri Jayesh Karsandas on 9 November, 2016
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 BANGALORE
PRESENT: SRI. SATISH J.BALI,
B.Com., LL.M.,
X Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes
(SCCH-16) Bangalore.
DATED THIS THE 09th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016
S.C No.1403/2016
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: : Sri Jayesh Karsandas
Chande,
S/o Karsandas Kanji
Chande,
Aged about 47 years,
Residing at B-802, Mantri
Pride, No.54, 1st Cross,
Mountain road, Byrasandra,
Bangalore-560 011.
(Exparte)
2 (SCCH-16) S.C. 1403/2016
Date of Institution : 04-08-2016
of suit
Nature of the suit : Recovery of money.
Date of the :
commencement of 26-10-2016
recording of the
evidence
Date on which the : 09-11-2016
Judgment was
pronounced
: YEARS MONTHS DAYS
Total duration 00 03 05
JUDGEMENT
The Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.19,899/- 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 involved in the field of telecommunications services and is carrying of the business of providing international mobile connections in the name and style of Matrix Cellular (International) Services Private Limited having its head office at New Delhi. The plaintiff is a leading telecom solutions provider for Indian travelers going abroad and it has branches in 98 cities in India. The plaintiff through its commercial tie-ups with local telecommunication service
3 (SCCH-16) S.C. 1403/2016 providers abroad allows Indians traveling abroad to use a local SIM card of the country to which they are traveling, thereby avoiding payment of international roaming charges that would be chargeable on Indian SIM cards being used in 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 services consumed by the customers.
3. The defendant being one of the customer of the plaintiff firm has used the SIM card services, when he was to United Kingdom. He has signed the agreements bearing No.T1000140568, T1000131970, T1000131976. The defendant applied for an international mobile connection in Bangalore and procured the standard customer agreement form containing the terms and conditions regarding the usage of the said connection. The defendant agreed to hire mobile connection and signed statement. The plaintiff firm based on the calls made, messages sent and mobile data consumed by the defendant during his time in abroad, certain bills were periodically raised on the defendant and sent to him electronically and also physically to the address stated in the 4 (SCCH-16) S.C. 1403/2016 agreement form. The defendant found due of Rs.19,899/- and in spite of several demands, he did not clear the said bills. In this regard a legal notice dated 21-02-2015 was issued to the defendant calling upon him to clear the dues, but in spite of service of the said notice, the defendant has not clear the dues. Hence, the present suit.
4. The defendant in spite of service of summons both by RPAD and through Court did not appear before the court. Hence, he was placed exparte.
5. On behalf of the plaintiff company, its authorized representative was examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8.
6. Since, the defendant placed exparte, no evidence was lead on his behalf and there was no cross examination of plaintiff.
7. Heard the arguments and perused the materials on record.
8. The points that would arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendant availed mobile services from the 5 (SCCH-16) S.C. 1403/2016 plaintiff firm and thereby is in due of Rs.19,899/-?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed in the suit?
3. What Order?
9. 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 REASONS POINT No.1:
10. The authorized representative of the plaintiff company has stepped into witness box and reiterated the plaint averments in his examination-in-chief as PW1. He has deposed regarding the mobile services availed by the defendant, when he had been to United Kingdom. The PW1 further deposed that, the defendant has signed to the standard customer agreement form bearing No.T1000140568, T1000131970, T1000131976 and availed mobile services from the plaintiff firm. He has deposed that, the defendant 6 (SCCH-16) S.C. 1403/2016 was found due of Rs.19,899/- which in spite of service of legal notice has not been paid.
11. Apart from the above said oral evidence, the PW1 has got marked board resolution at Ex.P1, agreement form bearing No.2364643 dated 24-10-2012 at Ex.P2, agreement form bearing No.2364673 dated 24-10-2012 at Ex.P3, agreement form bearing No.2364674 dated 24-10-2012 at Ex.P4, copy of bills dated 14-11-2012, 29-10-2012, 14-11- 2012, 29-10-2012 and 14-11-2012 at Ex.P5, statement of account with certificate under Section 65(b) of Indian Evidence Act at Ex.P6, office copy of the legal notice dated 21- 02-2015 at Ex.P7 and postal receipt at Ex.P8.
12. From perusal of the Ex.P1 board resolution, it is quite clear that, the PW1 was authorized to represent the plaintiff firm. The agreement form as per Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 reveals that, by executing these agreement forms, the defendant has availed mobile services, when he had been to United Kingdom. Ex.P5 bills reveals that, the usage of mobile services by the defendant, when he was in abroad. Ex.P6 statement of account reveals that, as on 21-09-2013, the defendant was in due of Rs.19,899.62 Paisa. The plaintiff firm 7 (SCCH-16) S.C. 1403/2016 has issued the legal notice as per Ex.P7 on 21-02-2015 calling upon the defendant to clear the above said bills. The postal receipt is as per Ex.P8, in spite of it, the defendant has not clear the dues. The above said materials makes it very clear that, the defendant by signing to the agreements as per Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 has availed mobile services of plaintiff firm. The statement of account marked at Ex.P6 and bills at Ex.P5 reveals the usage of mobile services by the defendant and he was in due of Rs.19,899.62 Paisa. The defendant in spite of service of summons both by RPAD and through court, did not appear before the court. If at all, he had not enjoyed the mobile services 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 agreed 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, the plaintiff firm has proved that, the defendant by using the mobile services of plaintiff firm is in due of Rs.19,899/- and accordingly I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
8 (SCCH-16) S.C. 1403/2016 POINT No.2:
13. The plaintiff firm has claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of due till actual realization. I have carefully perused Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 agreement forms, there is no clause with regard to the rate of interest in case of default. Having regard to the nature of transaction involved in this suit and the prevailing rate of interest, 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 21-09-2013 till actual realization. Accordingly, I answer point No.2 Partly in the affirmative.
POINT No.3:
14. 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 liable to pay a sum of Rs.19,899/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 21-09-2013 till actual realization.
9 (SCCH-16) S.C. 1403/2016 Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this 09th day of November 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 Agreement form bearing No.2364643 dated 24-10-
2012
Ex.P3 Agreement form bearing No.2364673 dated 24-10-
2012
Ex.P4 Agreement form bearing No.2364674 dated 24-10-
2012
Ex.P5 Copy of 5 bills dated 14-11-2012, 29-10-2012, 14-
11-2012, 29-10-2012 and 14-11-2012 Ex.P6 Statement of account with certificate u/s 65(b) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P7 Office copy of legal notice dated 21-02-2015 Ex.P8 Postal receipt List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendant:
None
10 (SCCH-16) S.C. 1403/2016 List of documents exhibited on behalf of defendant:
Nil (SATISH.J.BALI), X Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes Bangalore.