Delhi District Court
Matrix Cellular (International) ... vs Mayank Air Travel Services on 7 January, 2019
MATRIX CELLULAR (INTERNATIONAL) SERVICES PVT. LTD. V. Mayank Air Travel Services
IN THE COURT OF MS TYAGITA SINGH
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGECUMRENT CONTROLLER (SOUTH),
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS SCJ 84075/16
CNR No.: DLST030010102015
IN THE MATTER OF:
MATRIX CELLULAR (INTERNATIONAL) SERVICES LTD.
07, KHULLAR FARMS, 140, NEW MANGLAPURI,
MANDI ROAD, MEHRAULI,
NEW DELHI110030.
....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MAYANK AIR TRAVEL SERVICES,
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR,
610, 6TH FLOOR, AGGARWAL MILLINIUM TOWER,
NETAJI SUBASH PLACE, PITAMPURA,
DELHI110088 ....DEFENDANT
DATE OF INSTITUTION :14.07.2015
DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS :07.01.2019
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :07.01.2019
DECISION :DECREED
Advocates appearing in the case:
Sh. Abhinay Gupta and Sh. T.K. Goon, Ld. counsels for plaintiff.
Defendant is already exparte.
CS SCJ 84075/16 Page 1 of 6
MATRIX CELLULAR (INTERNATIONAL) SERVICES PVT. LTD. V. Mayank Air Travel Services
EXPARTE J U D G M E N T
1.This is a suit filed under Order XXXVII CPC (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') for recovery of a sum of Rs.35,185/ (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand One Hundred Eighty Five Only) alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation of the entire amount.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and dealing in International Mobile Rental Services. The suit has been filed by Sh. Binod Sinha, who is the duly constituted Attorney/Authorized Representative of the plaintiff company.
2.1 It is averred by the plaintiff that the defendant had applied for an international mobile connection and procured the Standard Application Form containing the terms and conditions regarding the usage of said connection and after being satisfied, the defendant applied for hiring the mobile connection. It is further averred that on the basis of the information/statement furnished by the defendant in the application form, the plaintiff gave an International Mobile Connection No. 7726674682 under agreement No. 2497743. It is further averred that an outstanding amount of Rs.35,185/ is due and payable by the defendant and plaintiff company raised the invoices on the defendant, as per ledger account, through bill dated 30.09.2013 upon the defendant. However, despite CS SCJ 84075/16 Page 2 of 6 MATRIX CELLULAR (INTERNATIONAL) SERVICES PVT. LTD. V. Mayank Air Travel Services repeated reminders and requests, the defendant failed to pay the same. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to get the defendant served with legal notice dated 19.06.2014 which was duly served upon the defendant. But the defendant, despite receipt of aforesaid notice, failed to make the payment of the aforesaid amount.
3. Summons were issued to defendant which were received back unserved with 'Left without address' report. Thereafter, summons were issued on fresh address of defendant which was received back unserved from the address i.e. 510, Amba Tower, Sector9, DC Chowk, Rohini, Delhi, with report that office was found locked and it was reported that said office opens very rarely. Again fresh summons were issued which were received with the report that office was found locked and summons were affixed at the outer door.
4. It is pertinent that suit was converted into ordinary suit vide order dated 19.01.2018. Defendant was served through substituted mode U/o V Rule 20 CPC through publication in newspaper "The Statesman" dated 06.10.2018. However, despite due service, the defendant failed to appear and hence, was proceeded exparte on 10.12.2018. The defendant failed to appear in Court despite expiry of sufficient time from date of service.
5. The plaintiff has led exparte evidence and has examined Sh. Binod Kumar Sinha, Senior Executive, Legal, of the plaintiff company, who filed CS SCJ 84075/16 Page 3 of 6 MATRIX CELLULAR (INTERNATIONAL) SERVICES PVT. LTD. V. Mayank Air Travel Services his evidence by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW1/1. PW1 has relied upon the documents i.e. copy of the Certificate of Incorporation, certified True copy of Board Resolution dated 03.04.2014 and ROC Letter dated 21.04.2015 is Ex. PW1/A (Colly.), Agreement Form is Ex. PW1/B, Original Tariff Plan is Ex. PW1/C, Account Ledger of the defendant maintained by the plaintiff company is Ex. PW1/D, Copies of Itemized Bills alongwith certificate in respect of the correctness and genuineness of the computer output in respect of Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are Ex. PW1/E (colly.), Legal Notice and Original Speed Post slip is Mark A (colly.), Copy of the Passport, Eticket and Company undertaking of the defendant of the user of said mobile connection is Mark B (colly.). Defendant failed to appear and failed to crossexamine PW1. Hence, plaintiff's evidence was closed on 04.01.2019.
6. Exparte final arguments were heard on the last date and case was fixed for exparte judgment for today.
7. I have given careful consideration to the submissions advanced by Sh. Abhinay Gupta, Ld. counsel for plaintiff and have gone through the record.
8. The plaintiff has duly exhibited on record documents i.e. copy of the Certificate of Incorporation, certified True copy of Board of Resolution dated 03.04.2014 and ROC Letter dated 21.04.2015, Agreement Form, CS SCJ 84075/16 Page 4 of 6 MATRIX CELLULAR (INTERNATIONAL) SERVICES PVT. LTD. V. Mayank Air Travel Services Original Tariff Plan, Account Ledger of the defendant maintained by the plaintiff company, Copies of Itemized Bills alongwith certificate under section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Legal Notice and Original Speed Post slip, Copy of the Passport, Eticket and Company undertaking of the defendant of the user of said mobile connection, in support of its case.
9. The defendant has neither filed any defence nor crossexamined plaintiff's witness, on account of being exparte, hence testimony of PW1 stands proved, as being uncontroverted and unrebutted.
10. As per the ledger account of the defendant, which is Ex. PW1/D, the last bill was raised on 30.09.2013 and the present case was filed on 14.07.2015. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is within limitation period of three years as per the Limitation Act 1963. As per ledger account of defendant Mayank Air Travel Services (A/C Code: 383263), total outstanding amount was Rs. 35,185.10 which has not been paid by the defendant till date.
11. In the given circumstances, the plaintiff has satisfactorily proved that a total amount of Rs.35,185/ is due, outstanding and payable by the defendant. However, interest at the rate of 18% as claimed is exorbitant. In my considered opinion, grant of interest @ 9% per annum would be adequate.
CS SCJ 84075/16 Page 5 of 6MATRIX CELLULAR (INTERNATIONAL) SERVICES PVT. LTD. V. Mayank Air Travel Services
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.35,185/ (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand One Hundred Eighty Five Only) alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum on principal amount from the date of filing of the suit till date of decree. Plaintiff is further entitled to simple interest @ 6% per annum from date of decree till date of payment of decreetal amount. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff to be paid by the defendant.
13. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
(Announced in the open (Tyagita Singh)
Court on 07.01.2019) SCJcumRC (South), Saket Courts
New Delhi
Digitally signed
by TYAGITA
TYAGITA SINGH
SINGH Date:
2019.01.11
15:25:56 +0530
CS SCJ 84075/16 Page 6 of 6