Bangalore District Court
M/S Matrix Cellular (International) vs Vinod. J.S on 30 August, 2016
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 30th day of August, 2016.
S.C.No:1221/2016
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.
(Reptd By: M/s Agraa Legal,
Advocates, Bengaluru).
VS.
DEFENDANT Vinod. J.S.,
S/o Shivalingaiah Javaraiah Sogala,
Aged about 30 years,
#41, 11th Main, 2nd Cross,
Raghavendra Block,
Srinagar,
Bangalore-560050.
(Defendant- Ex-parte).
XXII Addl. Small Causes Judge,
Bengaluru.
2 SCCH-24.
S.C.1221/2016
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 No.7, Khullar Farms 140, Mandi road, Mehrauli, New Delhi, incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 and having its branch office at the address as stated in the cause title. 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 traveling thereby avoiding to
3 SCCH-24.
S.C.1221/2016 pay international roaming charges that would be chargeable on Indian Sim- Cards being used abroad. 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 he has read and understood the terms and conditions of the Agreement Form and agreed to abide by them. The said agreement No.T1000035132, account code : 578559, Mobile No.0813717167, to use at Thailand states that, the agreement shall not cease to be in effect until fully satisfied by both parties and that all dues are paid to it 4 SCCH-24.
S.C.1221/2016 by the customer/defendant. The agreement continues to be in force until the defendant has cleared all his dues and all amounts payable to the plaintiff for the services already rendered by the plaintiff.
4. It is alleged that, based on the number of calls made, messages sent and mobile data consumed by the defendant during his time at abroad, certain bills were periodically raised on the defendant and sent to him 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.15,572/- 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 his counsel got issued a legal notice to the defendant to his address on 20.01.2015 and it is duly served upon the defendant, thereby calling upon him to make the payments of the above stated outstanding amount along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. However, the defendant has 5 SCCH-24.
S.C.1221/2016 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 company. Hence, the plaintiff has been constrained to file this suit for recovery of the amount of Rs.15,572/- due from the defendant.
5. Pursuance to the suit summons, the defendant has not appeared before the court. Hence, the defendant has been placed as exparte.
6. In order to substantiate the case made out by the plaintiff, it's Executive (Credit Control) has been examined as P.W.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. Thereafter, the plaintiff closed it's side evidence.
7. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the materials placed on record.
6 SCCH-24.
S.C.1221/2016
8. 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?
9. My findings on the above points are as under:
POINT NO.1 - Partly in the affirmative.
POINT NO.2 - As per final order,
for the following :
REASONS
POINT No.1:-
10. It is the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money for providing services to the defendant Travelling Abroad to use a local sim-card of the country to which he traveled to avoid to pay international roaming charges.
Before taking the above said local sim-card the defendant entered into and signed an agreement under the agreement No.T1000035132, account code : 578559, Mobile No.0813717167, to use at Thailand. In spite of several requests and demands made electronically and physically by the plaintiff in respect of payment of the 7 SCCH-24.
S.C.1221/2016 due amount raised on the number of calls made, messages sent and mobile data consumed by the defendant during his time abroad, he failed to pay the bill amount in a sum of Rs.15,572/-. Apart from that, the plaintiff also got issued a legal notice through its counsel on 20.01.2015 which is duly served upon the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed this suit for the recovery of Rs.15,572/- being the admitted sum of money payable by the defendant under the above said agreement along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
11. In support of the above said suit claim it's Executive (Credit Control) has entered in to the witness box and filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and examined as P.W.1. He produced the Authorisation letter, Agreement, Bill, Account ledger, copy of Legal Notice and Postal receipt at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 respectively.
12. To controvert the allegations made in the plaint as well as in the affidavit filed by way of examination-in- chief, the defendant has not chosen to cross-examine the 8 SCCH-24.
S.C.1221/2016 P.W.1 and he has not appeared before this Court and not chosen to file the written statement. The defendant is placed as exparte. These documentary evidence coupled with the evidence of the P.W.1 have not been controverted by the defendant in any manner.
13. Under the provisions of Order VIII Rule 5(2) read with Section 151 of C.P.C, if the defendant did not file the written statement, then it gives discretion to the Court to decree the suit as per the allegations made in the plaint if the claim is not barred by time or of any statute, so also Order 37 Rule 3 of C.P.C. envisages that in summary suit if the defendant does not appear before the Court though served with suit summons it is deemed that the defendant has admitted the claim of the plaintiff. The said principles can be applied to the present facts of the case. Therefore, if these factual features are put together, it can be stated that the plaintiff is able to prove its case with legal evidence.
14. The plaintiff is claiming recovery of Rs.15,572/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date 9 SCCH-24.
S.C.1221/2016 of the suit. So far as the interest is concerned, there is no agreement with regard to the rate of interest between the plaintiff and defendant. Under such circumstances and in the absence of documents the plaintiff is not entitled for the interest at the rate as sought for. But, for not paying the due amount by the defendant with in a stipulated period it is just and necessary to award the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. Accordingly, I record my findings on the above point No.1 partly in the affirmative. POINT No.2:-
15. As a result of my foregoing reasons and the discussions as stated above, the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and deserves to be decreed in part with costs.
In result, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part with cost.
The defendant is hereby directed to pay the suit claim of Rs.15,572/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till realization
10 SCCH-24.
S.C.1221/2016 The defendant is directed to pay the decreetal amount to the plaintiff within three months from the date of decree. Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of August, 2016).
(ZAIBUNNISA) XXII Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff :
PW.1 : Sri. Nazeer.
Documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 - Authorisation Letter. Ex.P.2 - Agreement. Ex.P.3 - Bill. Ex.P.4 - Account Ledger. 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 :
- Nil -
(ZAIBUNNISA) XXII Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru.