Bangalore District Court
M/S Matrix Cellular (International) ... vs Abhishek Goyal on 30 April, 2015
Before the Court of XII Additional Small Causes at Bangalore
(SCCH-8)
Present: Shri P.J. Somashekar B.A,LL.B.
XII Additional Small Causes Judge,
Bangalore.
Dated this the 30th day of April 2015
S.C.No.183/2015
Plaintiff M/s Matrix Cellular (International) Services
Private 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.Uday
Kumar K.
(Shri Kashyap N.Naik, Advocate)
V/s.
Defendant Abhishek Goyal,
S/o Narain Prasad Goyal, S.P.
Bagalkot, Sec-23,
Navanagar Bagalkot,
Bagalkot - 587 103.
(Exparte)
Date of institution of the suit: 24.02.2015
Nature of the suit (suit on pronote,
suit for declaration and possession
suit for injunction etc.): Recovery of money
Date of commencement of
recording of the evidence: 30-04-2015
Date on which the judgment
is pronounced : 29.4.2015
Total duration: Years Month/s Days
0 2 5
XII Addl.Judge
2 SCCH-8 SC 183/2015
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff company against the defendant for recovery of money of Rs.9,115/- with future interest at 18% p.a. from the date of suit till its realisation.
2. The brief facts of the plaint are as under:
The plaintiff company carrying its business of International Mobile Connections in its plaint has alleged that the defendant had applied for International Mobile Connection in Bengaluru and procured the Standard application form containing the terms and conditions regarding the usage of the said connection. After being satisfied about the terms and conditions, the defendant has agreed to hire a mobile connection bearing mobile No.97122534, agreement No.M1870233, Account Code 504709. The defendant has raised several bills on the basis of the usage of the said mobile connection. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendant has failed to pay a sum of Rs.9,115/-. Therefore, the plaintiff has got issued a legal notice on 23.05.2013 to the defendant calling upon him for payment of the due amount. But inspite of the notice he did not pay the due amount.
3. The cause of action for the suit which arose on 26.12.2011 when the agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant for providing international mobile services and when the amount became due but the defendant 3 SCCH-8 SC 183/2015 failed to pay the bills and on 23.5.2013 on which date the legal notice was got issued to the defendant within the jurisdiction of the Court and prays for decree the suit.
4. In response of the suit summons, the defendant did not appear nor file his written statement as he was placed ex-parte.
5. The plaintiff company in order to prove the plaint averments has examined its Authorised Signatory, as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P7 and plaintiff company has not examined any witness in its favour.
6. Heard the arguments on plaintiff's side.
7. The points that arise for court consideration are as under:
1) Whether the plaintiff company is entitled for the relief as prayed for?
2) What order or decree?
8. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the affirmative.
Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1:
The plaintiff company has approached the court on the ground that the company carrying its business of International Mobile Connections and the defendant had applied for International Mobile Connection in Bengaluru and procured the Standard application form containing the terms and conditions 4 SCCH-8 SC 183/2015 regarding the usage of the said connection. After being satisfied about the terms and conditions, the defendant has agreed to hire a mobile connection bearing mobile No.97122534, agreement No.M1870233, Account Code 504709. The defendant has raised the several bills on the basis of the usage of the said mobile connection. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendant has failed to pay a sum of Rs.9,115/-. Therefore, the plaintiff has got issued a legal notice on 23.5.2013 to the defendant calling upon him for payment of the due amount. But inspite of the notice he did not pay the due amount. Thereby, the plaintiff company has filed the instant suit against the defendant.
10. The plaintiff company in order to prove its case has examined its Authorised Signatory as PW1. The PW1 has filed his affidavit as his chief-examination in which he has stated that the plaintiff company carrying its business of International Mobile Connections and the defendant had applied for International Mobile Connection in Bengaluru and procured the Standard application form containing the terms and conditions regarding the usage of the said connection. After being satisfied about the terms and conditions, the defendant has agreed to hire a mobile connection bearing mobile No.97122534, agreement No.M1870233, Account Code 504709. The defendant has raised the several bills on the basis of the usage of the said mobile 5 SCCH-8 SC 183/2015 connection. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendant has failed to pay a sum of Rs.9,115/-. Therefore, the plaintiff has got issued a legal notice on 23.5.2013 to the defendant calling upon him for payment of the due amount. But inspite of the notice he did not pay the due amount. Thereby, the plaintiff company has filed the instant suit against the defendant.
11. The plaintiff company in support of the oral evidence has produced the documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. So Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 are clear that the defendant has applied for international mobile connection and accepted the terms and conditions of the company and the plaintiff company has provided cellular services as agreed upon the defendant, so after the said usage the defendant has failed to pay a sum of Rs.9,115/-. Thereby, the plaintiff company has requested him to pay the said due amount, but he did not pay the same. Thus, the plaintiff company has got issued a legal notice to the defendant, but he has failed to pay the same, thereby the plaintiff company has filed the instant suit against the defendant. If at all the defendant has not availed the services of cellular usage from the plaintiff company, the defendant would have appear and resisted the claim of the plaintiff company, but the defendant in spite of summons he did not appear nor resisted the claim of the plaintiff company, that itself goes to show that the defendant has availed the cellular services from the 6 SCCH-8 SC 183/2015 plaintiff company for the usage of International Mobile Connection In Bangalore, though he has utilised said service, but he did not pay the due amount. So, the defendant is liable to pay the interest on due amount. The plaintiff company has proved its case through oral and documentary evidence, and the plaintiff company has filed the instant suit within the lamitation. As the evidence of the PW1 and documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 are remained unchallenged. Hence, I answer this point in the Affirmative.
12. Point No.2:
In view of my answer to the point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff company is decreed with costs. The defendant is hereby directed to pay the decreetal amount of Rs.9,115/- with interest at the rate of 16% p.a. to the plaintiff company from the date of suit till its realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of April 2015.
(P.J.Somashekar), XII Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore.7 SCCH-8 SC 183/2015
ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiffs:
PW1 Sri Udaya Kumar K. List of the documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiffs:
Ex.P1 Authorisation letter
Ex.P2 Agreement
Ex.P3 Matrix tariff sheet
Ex.P4 Bill copy
Ex.P5 Ledger copy
Ex.P6 Notice copy
Ex.P7 Postal receipt
List of the witnesses examined on behalf of defendants:
None List of the documents marked on behalf of defendants:
Nil (P.J. Somashekar), XII Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore.