Delhi District Court
Matrix Cellular Services Pvt Ltd vs Jaswant Singh on 21 May, 2011
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE05 (SOUTH), SAKET
COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Manika
CS NO. 286/11
Unique Case ID No. 02406C0106342011
Matrix Cellular Services Pvt Ltd.,
7, Khullar Farms, 140, New Manglapuri,
Mandi Road, Mehrauli,
New Delhi110030.
...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Jaswant Singh
S/o Harish Singh,
A494/5, Dabua Colony,
Near Vivek Vidhlaya,
NIT Faridabad, Haryana121001.
...DEFENDANT
Suit No. 286/11 Page 1 of 6
Date of Institution: 20.11.2009
Date of Reserving: 16.05.2011
Date of Pronouncement: 21.05.2011
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'C.P.C.') for recovery of Rs.7,262/ (Rupees Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Two only) along with pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum along with costs of the suit from the defendant.
2. The suit is filed with the averments that the plaintiff is a Private Limited Company dealing in Mobile Rental Services. The suit is filed through Sh. Chandra Shekhar, Legal Executive of the plaintiff, who is the duly constituted Attorney of the plaintiff company.
3. It is averred that the present suit is based on the Customer Agreement Form, under which a sum of Rs.7,262/ is payable by the defendant towards the usage of Mobile Phone Services rendered by the Plaintiff Company.
Suit No. 286/11 Page 2 of 6
4. It is contended by the plaintiff that the defendant had applied for Mobile Connection and signed a statement that he has read and understood the terms and conditions of the agreement form dated 19.12.2007 and 14.01.2008 and agrees to abide by them. It is further contended that on the basis of the information/statement furnished by the defendant in the Application Form, the plaintiff gave him Mobile Connection Nos. 9873437998 and 9953660037 under the Agreement Nos. MCS00178595 and MCS181819 respectively. As per the accounts maintained by the plaintiff company, there is an outstanding amount of Rs.7,262/ due and payable by the defendant towards the Mobile Nos. 9873437998 and 9953660037 which has accrued by defendant's usage of Mobile Telephone Services in accordance with the terms and conditions of the written contract.
5. The plaintiff has contended that the said demand, against invoices, has been raised upon the defendant through monthly bills sent to the defendant by the plaintiff company. In spite of legal notice dated 26.03.2009, the defendant has failed to clear his outstanding liabilities. The plaintiff also suffered loss of interest due to nonpayment by the defendant. Hence the plaintiff has filed the present suit.
Suit No. 286/11 Page 3 of 6
6. To substantiate its claim, the plaintiff has filed the copy of the certificate of incorporation, board resolution, General Power of Attorney, original Customer Agreement Forms No. 181819 and 00178595, account ledger of the defendant, copy of legal notice dated 26.03.2009, original speed post receipts, copy of driving licence of the defendant and Tariff Plan of the defendant.
7. Vide order dated 25.11.2009 of the learned predecessor of this Court, summons as prescribed under Order XXXVII of the C.P.C. were ordered to be issued against the defendant. The defendant was served through registered AD at the second address on 10.08.2010. AD Card in respect of summons sent to the defendant at the first address was also received back without registered envelope.
8. No application for entering appearance on behalf of the defendant is present on record. Vide order dated 04.05.2011, the Ahlmad was directed to report after inquiry from the Ahlmad of the learned Transferor Court as to whether any appearance had been entered on behalf of the defendant before the said Court. The Ahlmad of the learned Transferor Court has reported that no appearance had been filed on behalf of the defendant in the said Court. Further, vide order dated 16.05.2011, a report was called from the Ahlmad and Suit No. 286/11 Page 4 of 6 Reader as to whether any appearance had been entered on behalf of the defendant before this Court. The Ahlmad as well as Reader have reported that no such application has been filed on behalf of the defendant before this Court. Therefore, the defendant has failed to enter appearance till date.
9. In the above mentioned circumstances, Sh. Piyush Kumar, proxy counsel for Sh. Anurag Jain, Advocate, learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that in terms of the provisions of Order XXXVII Rule 2 (3) of the C.P.C., as no appearance has been filed on behalf of the defendant, the allegations made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted by him and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for against the defendant. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff is in conformity with the provisions of Order XXXVII Rule 2 (3) of the C.P.C., and therefore, as the defendant has not filed appearance in terms of Order XXXVII of the C.P.C., allegations made in the plaint are deemed to have been admitted by him and as such the present suit is hereby decreed for a sum of Rs.7,262/ (Rupees Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Two only) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant along with pendentelite interest at the rate of 09% per annum and costs of the suit.
Suit No. 286/11 Page 5 of 6
10. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
11. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court on 21.05.2011 (MANIKA) CJ05 (South), New Delhi 21.05.2011 Suit No. 286/11 Page 6 of 6