Bangalore District Court
M/S.Matrix Cellular (International) ... vs Lohith. S on 28 July, 2016
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title sheet for
Judgment in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
AT BENGALURU. (SCCH.18)
Present: Sri.Veeranna Somasekhara,
B.Com., L.L.B,
III Addl. Senior Civil Judge,
and Member, MACT,
Bangalore.
Dated: This 28th day of July 2016
S.C.No.145/2015
PLAINTIFF:
M/s.Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd.,
A Company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 and having its Branch
Office at No.95, 17th 'B' Main Road,
Koramangala,
Bangalore-560095,
Rep.by its Executive
Mr.Nazeer.
(By Pleader Sri.KNN)
-Vs-
2 S.C.No.145/2015
SCCH-18
DEFENDANT:
Lohith. S.
Major,
R/at No.152, 3rd Cross Raod,
Thanirappa Road,
Sriranganagar,
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Bangalore-560085.
(Exparte)
Date of institution of the suit 12-02-2015
Nature of the suit (suit on
Pronote, suit for Declaration
and possession Suit for
Injunction, etc.) Recovery of money
Date of the commencement of
Recording of the evidence: 11-07-2016
Date on which the Judgment was
Pronounced: 28-07-2016
Total duration: Year/s Months Day/s
1 4 16
(VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA)
III ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSE
BANGALORE.
3 S.C.No.145/2015
SCCH-18
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiff company representative has filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.29,595/- with future interest @ 18% P.A.
2. The brief contents of plaint 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) Pvt., Ltd., and having its branch office at Bangalore. Further the contention of the plaintiff is that, the defendant has submitted an application requesting for international mobile connection in Bangalore and after agreeing the terms and conditions, he has agreed to hire a mobile connection and signed the agreement form. Thereafter the plaintiff has provided cellular services to the defendant and the defendant has availed the same. However, after some period of usage, the defendant has not paid the bills of the mobile 4 S.C.No.145/2015 SCCH-18 services amounting to Rs.29,595/-. Thereafter, to discharge the said amount, the defendant has issued the cheque for the said amount and the plaintiff has presented the said cheque for encashment, but the same was returned with an endorsement "insufficient funds" in the account of defendant. Hence, the plaintiff has got issued legal notice dated 27-01-2014 to the defendant calling upon him to pay due amount. In spite of service of notice, the defendant has not paid the due amount.
Alleging the above said cause of action, the plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant for the above said relief.
3. After registration of the suit, the suit summons were issued to the defendant through court and RPAD and the said summons were returned unserved. Thereafter, the suit summons to the defendant was issued by way of affixture. In spite of service of summons, the defendant has not appeared before the court. Accordingly, he was placed exparte. 5 S.C.No.145/2015
SCCH-18
4. On perusal of the contents of plaint, the following short points arise for my consideration:-
1. Whether the plaintiff company has proved that the transaction taken place between it and the defendant and proved that, the defendant is due for a sum of Rs.29,595/- as contended in the plaint?
2. Whether the Plaintiff Company is entitled for interest as claimed?
3. Whether the plaintiff company is entitled for the relief as prayed for?
4. What order?
5. In order to prove the case, the Authorized representative of Plaintiff Company has examined himself as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex-P-1 to 6.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
7. My findings to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the affirmative Point No.2 & 3: In the partly affirmative Point No.4: As per final order 6 S.C.No.145/2015 SCCH-18 for the following:
R E A S O N S
8. POINT NO.1 and 2: These points are inter-
connected with each other. Hence in order to avoid the repetition of facts, I have taken these points for common consideration.
9. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued by reiterating the contents of plaint and also evidence put forth by the PW-1. Further he argued that the evidence of PW-1 is supported with documentary evidence. Further the counsel for the plaintiff argued that, to disprove the case of the plaintiff, the defendant has not appeared before the court and not produced any rebuttal documents. On the other hand, the plaintiff has proved its case as contended in the plaint by producing oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, he prays to decree the suit.
7 S.C.No.145/2015
SCCH-18
10. On perusal of the records, it appears that, to prove the case, the plaintiff's company authorized representative has examined himself as PW-1 and he has stated in his evidence by reiterating the contents of plaint. In support of his evidence, he has produced the documents and the same are marked as Ex-P-1 to 6.
11. The contention of the plaintiff is that, the defendant has used the international mobile connection and has agreed to pay the charges and agreed with its terms and conditions of the Plaintiff Company.
To prove the said contention, the PW-1 has relied upon the documents at Ex-P-2, 5 and 6 i.e. copy of Account extract, copy of duplicate bill and copy of computerized bill. Further on perusal of the records, the copy of agreement form is in the file and the same is not yet marked as exhibit.
8 S.C.No.145/2015
SCCH-18 On perusal of evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex-P-2 and 6 i.e. copy of account extract and copy of bill, it appears that, the defendant was due an amount of Rs.30,194/- as on 4.01.2014. Further on perusal of Ex-P-3 and 4 i.e. copy of legal notice and postal receipt, it appears that, before filing the suit, the plaintiff company has got issued the legal notice to the defendant through its counsel calling upon the defendant to pay the due amount. Further on perusal of copy of agreement available in the file, it appears that, on 12.9.2013, the defendant has executed the said customer agreement form in favour of plaintiff company by admitting the conditions mentioned in the form. Considering the above facts and on perusal of evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex-P-2 to 6 and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the plaintiff company has proved the transaction taken place between it and the defendant as contended in the plaint and also proved that, the defendant is 9 S.C.No.145/2015 SCCH-18 due an amount of Rs.29,595/- as contended in the plaint. On the other hand, as stated above that, inspite of service of summons, the defendant has not appeared before the court and not produced the rebuttal documents to disbelieve the version of the plaintiff. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex-P-2 to 6 and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the plaintiff has proved the point No.1 by producing oral and documentary evidence.
12. The specific contention of the plaintiff company is that, in spite of service of notice, the defendant has not paid the balance amount. Hence, he is liable to pay future interest @ 18% p.a. To prove the said fact, the plaintiff has not produced any document to show that the defendant has agreed to pay interest @ 18% p.a. if he failed to pay bill amount within prescribed period. On the other hand, on perusal of Ex-P-3, it 10 S.C.No.145/2015 SCCH-18 appears that, before filing the suit, the plaintiff has issued the legal notice to the defendant calling upon him to pay the due amount.
13. Further as stated above that, the defendant is due an amount of Rs.30,194/- as on 04-01-2014. Further on perusal of contents of plaint coupled with documents, it appears that, the transaction took place between the plaintiff and the defendant is a commercial transaction. Considering the above facts and looking to the nature of transaction and date of due, I am of the opinion that, if nominal interest is awarded certainly it would meet the ends of justice. For the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the defendant is liable to pay future interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization.
14. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of evidence of PW-1 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff 11 S.C.No.145/2015 SCCH-18 has partly proved these points by producing sufficient documents. Accordingly, I answer the point No.1 is in the affirmative and the point No.2 is in the partly affirmative.
15. POINT NO.3: As far as this point is concerned, as stated above that, the plaintiff company has partly proved its case by producing oral and documentary evidence. Hence, the plaintiff company is entitle for the relief as prayed in the suit. Accordingly, I answer the point No.3 is in partly affirmative.
16. POINT NO.4: In view of my findings on point No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following order:
O R D E R The suit filed by the plaintiff company is hereby partly decreed with cost.
The defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.29,595/- with future interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization. 12 S.C.No.145/2015
SCCH-18 Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this 28th day of July, 2016).
(VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA) III ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined for Plaintiff:
PW.1 : Nazeer List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex-P1 Authorization letter Ex-P2 Copy of Account extract Ex-P3 Copy of legal notice Ex-P4 Postal receipt Ex-P5 Copy of duplicate bill Ex-P6 Xerox copy of computer bill
List of Witnesses examined for defendant :
-Nil-
List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
-Nil-
III ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & XXIX ACMM.