Delhi District Court
Mtnl vs . Rakesh Kumar on 28 July, 2008
MTNL Vs. Rakesh Kumar
1
IN THE COURT OF MS JYOTI KLER: CIVIL JUDGE: DELHI
Suit No. 1006/06
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Khurshid Lal Bhawan,
Janpath, New Delhi-50
...... Plaintiff
VERSUS
Sh. Rakeh Kumar,
S/o Sh. Mahinder Pal Toora,
R/o B-9/74, Sector-18, Rohini,
Delhi-110085
.... Defendant
(1)Date of institution of suit: 28.3.2006
(2)Date of conclusion of final argument: 25.07.2008
(3)Date of Judgment: 28.07.2008
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.21,474/-
Ex-parte Judgment
Vide this ex-parte Judgment, I shall decide the present suit
for recovery of Rs.21,474/- along with future interest @ 18% per annum
1 of 5
MTNL Vs. Rakesh Kumar
2
filed by MTNL (hereinafter referred as the 'plaintiff') against Sh. Rakesh
Kumar(hereinafter referred as the 'defendant').
2. The facts averred in the plaint are as follows:-
Plaintiff is a Government of India undertaking incorporated
under the provisions of Companies Act,1956. It has been issued a
licence by the Government of India to establish, maintain and work
telegraphs and services within the Union Territory of Delhi. The plaintiff
company is having its registered office at 12, Jeewan Bharti Building,
Connaught Circus, New Delhi and corporate office at Khurshid Lal
Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi. Sh. S K Arora, Sr. Accounts Officer
(Legal) is the person duly authorized and competent to sign, file and
verify the present pleadings. It is alleged that on 25.4.2001, telephone
no. 27858905 with ISDN facility was issued to the defendant who
resides at B-9/74, Sector-18, Rohini, Delhi-85. Various bills were raised
on the basis of consumption of the defendant from time to time.
Defendant failed to make payment of total three bills dated 12.4.2003,
2 of 5
MTNL Vs. Rakesh Kumar
3
12.5.2003, and 11.08.2003 respectively and collectively amounting to Rs.21,474/-. The TRI of the plaintiff visited the premise and a demand notice was served on the defendant. However, defendant failed to pay. Accordingly, the present suit for recovery of the aforesaid amount along with future interest @ 18% per annum.
3. Defendant did not appear despite service and, accordingly, he was proceeded ex-parte on 13.09.2006.
4. Plaintiff lead ex-parte evidence. It examined Sh. S P Shrivastav, AOTR (Rohini), MTNL as PW1. PW1 has reiterated the contents of the plaint on oath. He has specifically deposed about the material particulars of the case. He has further deposed and proved Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/4. PW1/1 is the bill dated 12.4.2003 showing the due amount as Rs.7197/- which was payable up to 05.05.2003 and if not so paid the amount payable after due date was Rs. 7347/-. PW1/2 is the bill dated 12.5.2003 showing the due amount as Rs.5732/- which was payable up to 05.06.2003 and if not so paid the amount 3 of 5 MTNL Vs. Rakesh Kumar 4 payable after due date was Rs. 5882/-. PW1/3 is the bill dated 12.7.2003 showing the due amount as Rs.970/- which was payable up to 11.08.2003 and if not so paid the amount payable after due date was Rs. 990/-. Ex. PW1/4 is the demand notice. All these documents have been specifically proved by the PW1 by way of his deposition on oath.
5. PW2, namely, Sh. S K Arora, Senior Accounts Officer (Legal) has also deposed about the material particulars of the case. He has also placed on record and proved Ex. PW2/1 which is Memorandum of Authorization authorising PW-2 to sign, file, verify and present the pleadings and also to institute Civil Suit etc. on behalf of MTNL i.e. the plaintiff.
6. PW1 and PW2 have corroborated the testimony of each other on material particulars. Defendant has not appeared. Hence, the testimony of PW1 and PW2 has gone un-rebutted and unchallenged. I do not find any reason as to why this unrebutted testimony should not be believed, especially when it is duly corroborated by the documents 4 of 5 MTNL Vs. Rakesh Kumar 5 placed on record.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the present suit deserves to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Accordingly, the present suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant in the sum of Rs.21,474/-. The future interest @ 6% per annum is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff along with the costs of the suit. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open court today JYOTI KLER
i.e. 28th July 2008 CIVIL JUDGE. DELHI
5 of 5