Delhi District Court
Matrix Cellular (International) Ser. ... vs Indian Institute Of Planning & ... on 10 December, 2013
DECISION: DECREED
IN THE COURT OF Ms. TANVI KHURANA, CIVIL JUDGE5 (South)
SAKET COURTS NEW DELHI
In the Matter of:
Civil Suit No. 379/13
Case ID No.02406C0275652013
Matrix Cellular (International) Ser. Pvt Ltd.,
07, Khullar Farms, 140, New Manglapuri,
Mandi Road, Mehrauli, New Delhi110030
Through Its Authorized Representative
Mr. Tarun Yadav
..............Plaintiff
Versus
Indian Institute of Planning & Management
Through its Authorized Signatory
IIPM International Campus, Satbari
Chandan Haula, Chattarpur, Bhati Mines Road,
New Delhi110075
........... Defendant
Date of institution : 03.11.2012/24.09.2013
Date of reserving the judgment : Nil
Date of pronouncement : 10.12.2013
Decision : DECREED
Present: Shri Abhinay Gupta, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff.
Defendant proceeded exparte vide order dated 23.07.2013.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.85,311/(RUPEES EIGHTY FIVE THOUSAND
THREE HUNDRED AND ELEVEN ONLY ) WITH INTEREST.
Suit No. 379/13
Matrix Cellular (International) Ser. Pvt Ltd. v. IIPM Page 1of 6
DECISION: DECREED
JUDGMENT:
The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of recovery of Rs.85,311/(Rupees Eighty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Eleven only) with interest @ 18 % per annum pendente lite and future interest from the date of filing the suit till its realization.
2. Succinctly, the factual matrix culminating into the present case is that the plaintiff is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act dealing in International Mobile Rental Services having its registered office at 07,Khullar Farms,140, New Manglapuri, Mandi Road, Mehrauli, New Delhi110030. The present suit has been filed by the authorised representative Mr. Chandra Shekhar who is the Power of Attorney holder. Later on, the AR was substituted to be Mr. Tarun Yadav. The suit was initially filed under Order XXXVII CPC later it was converted to ordinary suit. The defendant had applied for the International mobile connection in South Delhi and procured the Standard Application Form containing the Terms and Conditions. On the basis of the information furnished by the defendant, International Mobile Connection Nos.3026827594, 473752715, 7942845141, 3026705477, 15191327281, 3029305663, 777930169, 7951261726, 3029308700, 3026827594, 7942852815 and 3022601671 under the agreement Nos.M848452, M1100987,M833437, M840659, M866898, 896941, M1002867, M675203, M835371, M830365 and M 1262895, were given.
3. It is further submitted that an amount of Rs.85,311/ is outstanding which has occurred due to the defendant usage of the services. The defendant has paid an amount of Rs.1,34,459/ on Suit No. 379/13 Matrix Cellular (International) Ser. Pvt Ltd. v. IIPM Page 2of 6 DECISION: DECREED different dates which was adjusted in the account ledger maintained by the plaintiff company. Despite requests, the outstanding amount has not been paid. A legal notice dated 31.03.2012 was also issued which was duly received by the defendant. Hence, the present suit has been filed for the recovery of the dues.
4. Summons issued to the defendant were duly served but none appeared on its behalf and therefore, the matter was proceeded exparte against the defendant on 23.07.2013.
5. In the exparte evidence, PW1 Sh. Tarun Yadav, Executive Legal, AR of the plaintiff stepped into the witness box and placed reliance upon Ex. PW1/A to Ex PW1/E. Mark 'A' to 'B' were also tendered. Thereafter vide a separate statement dated 02.12.2013, he closed the plaintiff evidence.
6. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the documentary proof adduced in the present case is sufficient to establish the claim of the plaintiff. Statement of ledger account has been duly tendered by PW1. All the bills corelating to the amount sought have been placed on record. All the documentary evidence goes on to establish the liability of the defendant without any doubt. The amount still outstanding has not paid. Therefore, suit be decreed in their favour.
7. I have heard the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and with his kind assistance meticulously gone through entire case record. None appeared on behalf of the defendant to contradict the claim by way of cross examination or arguments.
8. The main bone contention in the present case is that Suit No. 379/13 Matrix Cellular (International) Ser. Pvt Ltd. v. IIPM Page 3of 6 DECISION: DECREED whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery with interest as sought in the plaint. In order to reach the proper adjudication, it is an imperative on this Court to scrutinize the evidence adduced. In order to discharge the onus, PW1 stepped into witness box and vide affidavit Ex. PW1/1 reiterated the entire contentions of the plaint. He stated that the amount of Rs.85,311/ is outstanding. He further tendered following documents in his documentary evidence:
Ex. PW1/ A (colly) Certificate of incorporation and Board of Resolution Ex. PW1/B(colly) Original agreement form Ex. PW1/C(colly) Tariff plan Ex. PW1/D (colly) Ledger Account Mark A (colly) Legal notice and postal receipts Mark B (colly) Itemized bills Ex. PW1/E Original undertaking of payment
9. This is the entire evidence produced by the plaintiff in the present case. It can be seen from these documents that the defendant had applied for the Connection. The agreement form, Ex PW1/B (colly) was executed and the defendant had duly signed the documents. The Tariff Sheets, Ex. PW1/C (colly) also bear defendant's signatures. The copy of Ledger Account maintained by the plaintiff company for the account of the defendant has also been produced as Ex. PW1/D (colly). It shows that there is an outstanding amount of Rs.85,311.59/. The defendant has paid an amount of Rs. 1,34,459/ on different dates which was adjusted in the account ledger maintained by the plaintiff company. Copy of legal notice, Mark A (colly) has been placed on record to substantiate that the claim of Rs.85,311 / as principal amount and Suit No. 379/13 Matrix Cellular (International) Ser. Pvt Ltd. v. IIPM Page 4of 6 DECISION: DECREED interest at the rate of 18% per annum is outstanding. Postal receipts Mark A (colly) have also been placed on record to establish the issuance of the legal notice dated 31.03.2012. It is clearly corroborated that the principal amount mentioned in the statement of account is same as in the legal notice. Further it is also established that the suit is well within limitation.
10. There is nothing on file to suggest the contrary to the claim of the plaintiff. It is pertinent to note that the defendant did not appear at all in the present case. He has not controverted the claim of the plaintiff by means of appearance, filing of WS or cross examination of the witness or production of evidence as he has not made appearance to rebut the claim of plaintiff. Hence, there is nothing to suspect the fact that Rs.85,311/ is outstanding as principal amount.
11. The testimony of PW1 has been duly corroborated by different documents placed on file and therefore there is nothing to suspect the statement of PW1. All the documentary evidence is on record. In light thereof, it can be noted from all the documents that the principal amount of Rs. 85,311/ is pending and is liable to be paid by the defendant.
12. Then again, what needs to be adjudicated in the present case is the rate of interest. The plaintiff has sought the interest @ 18% per annum from the filing of the suit till the recovery. However, this Court deems the rate of 10% per annum to be fit as 18% is exorbitant and not reasonable.
13. Consequent to the above discussion, suit is hereby decreed with costs. Plaintiff is entitled to the decree of recovery of Suit No. 379/13 Matrix Cellular (International) Ser. Pvt Ltd. v. IIPM Page 5of 6 DECISION: DECREED Rs.85,311/ as principal amount and interest 10% per annum from the filing of the case till the realization of the decretal amount. Decreesheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due indexing, paging and completion.
Announced in the open court on 10th December 2013. (TANVI KHURANA) The judgment contains 06 pages, Civil Judge5 (South) all checked and signed by me. Saket Courts/New Delhi 10.12.2013 Suit No. 379/13 Matrix Cellular (International) Ser. Pvt Ltd. v. IIPM Page 6of 6