Bangalore District Court
M/S Matrix Cellular (International) vs Shyam Kiran on 30 June, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES (SCCH-23)
AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JUNE 2017
PRESENT: SRI.N.N.YALAVATTI, B.Com., LL.B (Spl),
XXI ADDL. SCJ & XIX ACMM
MEMBER - MACT
BENGALURU.
S.C No.902 of 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.
Represented by its Executive
Mr. K.Uday Kumar.
(By Sri Kashyap.N.Naik, Advocate)
Vs.
DEFENDANT: Shyam Kiran, age not known,
father`s name not known, residing at 88,
Ibrahim Sahib street, shivaji nagar,
Bangalore - 560001.
(Experte)
Date of Institution of the suit : 29.07.2015
Nature of the suit (suit on pronote, : Recovery of money
2 SC No.902/2015
SCCH-23
Suit for declaration and possession
Suit for injunction, etc.):
Date of commencement of : 26.06.2017
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 30.06.2017
was pronounced
Total Duration Years Month/s Days
01 11 01
XXI Additional Judge
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for the recovery of a sum of Rs.18,917=53 with costs and future interest.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint is as follows:-
The plaintiff is a company carrying out business of International Mobile Connection in the name and style Matrix Cellular (International Services Pvt. Ltd.) having its head office at 3 SC No.902/2015 SCCH-23 Delhi. One Mr.Uday Kumar, Executive has been authorized by the company to represent the plaintiff company to file this suit. The defendant had admitted sum is payable to the plaintiff company for the international mobile service rendered under the agreements as stated in para 4 of the plaint. The defendant had applied for international Matrix commission in Bangalore and procured standard customer agreement form containing the terms and conditions regarding usage of said connection. The defendant agreed to abide by them. Thereafter several bills were raised on the basis of the defendant`s usage of the said mobile connections. However inspite of several request and demands, defendant has failed to pay sum of Rs.18,917=53. Despite several demands to pay the bill including the legal notice, the defendant has failed to repay the due amount. Hence the plaintiff has constrained to file this suit and requested to decree the suit as prayed.
3. Inspite of serving notice, the defendant remained absent and placed exparte.
4 SC No.902/2015
SCCH-23
4. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the one Nazeer- Authorized Signature of the plaintiff company got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex-P1 to 7.
5. I have heard the argument from advocate for plaintiff.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the decree against the defendant for the suit claim?
2. What decree or order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : Affirmative Point No.2 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1: I have carefully scrutinized oral evidence of PW-1 along with documents marked at Ex-P1 to 7. PW-1 is authorized person to represent the plaintiff. He has filed copy of 5 SC No.902/2015 SCCH-23 the board resolution authorizing to represent the plaintiff which is marked at Ex-P1. The authorization copy of the Udaya Kumar who has filed this suit on behalf of company is marked at Ex-P2. The Ex-P1 reveals that PW-1 has power to give evidence and represent the plaintiff.
9. I have carefully scrutinized oral evidence of PW-1 along with customer agreement marked at Ex-P3 including computerized copy of the bill marked at Ex-P4 and copy of the account ledger marked at Ex-P5. All these documents speaks that the defendant has agreed to hire mobile connections and signed the agreement. The remaining documents speaks that several bills were raised on the basis of the defendant usage of the said mobile connection. The evidence of PW-1 and ledger extract speaks that the defendant has failed to pay sum of Rs.18,917=53. The plaintiff has made several request to pay this due amount. Inspite of it, the defendant has failed to repay the due amount. Therefore the available documents are sufficient to 6 SC No.902/2015 SCCH-23 say that the defendant is liable to pay suit claim amount with interest. Hence, I answered point No.1 Accordingly.
10. Point No.2: In view of the discussions made supra, I proceed to pass the following:
-: ORDER :-
The suit of plaintiff is hereby decreed with cost for a sum of Rs.18,917=53 with future interest at the rate of 18% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 30th day of June 2017) (N.N.YALAVATTI) XXI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF PW-1: Nazeer 7 SC No.902/2015 SCCH-23 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF Ex.P-1: Copy of the board resolution Ex.P-2: Original authorisation letter Ex.P-3: Original agreement form along with annexure Ex.P-4: Copy of bill and certificate u/s 65 b of Evidence Act Ex.P-5: Original account ledger Ex.P-6: Original copy of the legal notice dated 15-3-2013 Ex.P-7: Original postal receipt LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:
None LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:
Nil (N.N.YALAVATTI) XXI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE Bangalore.