UILS Intra Moot Competition, 2018

Memorial for : TEAM CODE – A-11

BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL COMMISSION OF INDILAND

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REGARDING THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986 AND INDIAN CONTRACT

ACT,1872

THE UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT

COURT COMPETITON, 2018

28th-30th SEPTEMBER 2018

in the matter of

BHATIA INSURANCE COMPANY AND ORS. (APPELLANTS)

VERSUS

Ms. VAISHNAVI (RESPONDENT)

ON SUBMISSION TO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT OF

THE HON’BLE NATIONAL COMMISSION AT INDILAND

(MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 1

 UILS Intra Moot Competition, 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...........................................................................................................3

BOOKS.......................................................................................................................................3

STATUTES.................................................................................................................................3

WEBSITES.................................................................................................................................3

CASES.........................................................................................................................................3

Statement of Facts............................................................................................................................5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...............................................................................................6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES.............................................................................................................7

ISSUE I.......................................................................................................................................7

ISSUE II......................................................................................................................................7

ISSUE III....................................................................................................................................7

ISSUE IV.....................................................................................................................................7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.....................................................................................................8

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.........................................................................................................9

ISSUE I.......................................................................................................................................9

Whether or not the Chandiland State Commission had the jurisdiction to entertain complaint
filed by Vaishnavi?...................................................................................................................9

ISSUE II....................................................................................................................................10

Whether or not Vaishnavi was aggrieved by the deficiency in services?..............................10

ISSUE III..................................................................................................................................14

Whether or not the services provided by the Kamra Electronics can be termed as Unfair
Trade Practices within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act,1986?.............................14

ISSUE IV...................................................................................................................................17

Whether or not the NG Service Provider can be made party to the case?.............................17

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 2

 UILS Intra Moot Competition, 2018

PRAYER FOR RELIEF................................................................................................................19

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS
1. Law of Contract & Specific Relief Act , Avatar Singh ( Eastern Book Company ).
2. Indian Contract Act, Dr. R.K. Bangia , 15th Ed , (Allahabad Law Agency )
3. The Indian Contract Act ,Pollock & Mulla , 14th Ed, (Lexis Nexis)
4. Universal’s Concise Commentary ; The Indian Contract Act (9 of 1872) (Universal Law
Publishing)
5. Contract-I and Specific Relief Act , Dr. S.K. Kapoor ( Central Law Agency )
6. Dutt on Contract : The Indian Contract Act,1872 , H.K. Sarahay (Eastern Law House)
7. Supreme Court on The Consumer Protection Act. Justice S.N. Aggarwal , 2nd Ed,
(Universal Law Publishing )

STATUTES
1. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Indian Contract Act, 1872.
3. Sales of Goods Act, 1930.
4. Insurance Act, 1938.
5. Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

WEBSITES
1. https://www.scconline.com/webedition.aspx
2. www.westlawindia.com/
3. http://ncdrc.nic.in/
4. https://www.manupatra.com

CASES

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 3

 UILS Intra Moot Competition, 2018

1. Banque keyser Illman SA v Skandia (UK) Insurance Co. Ltd....................................12

2. Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath.............................11
3. M/s Maheshwari Steels v/s Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited,
Through Additional Chief Engineer, City Circle, 32 Bungalow, Bhilai, District Durg
(C.G.) & Ors......................................................................................................................15
4. Mahabir Kishore & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh....................................................17
5. National Insurance Co. LTD. v. Krishna Devi and 4 ors.............................................12
6. National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Krishna Devi & Ors......................................................15
7. R.S. Deboo v. Hindlekar..................................................................................................11
8. Tirumulu Subbu Chetti vs Arunachalam Chettiar..........................................................18
9. V. Srinivasa Pillai v. L.I.C. of India...............................................................................11

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 4

 UILS Intra Moot Competition, 2018

Statement of Facts

1. Orange Inc. is a reputed Indian phone company which deals in import and export of O-
Tab, a tablet. Karma Electronics is one reputed store in Chandiland dealing in the sale of
O-Tab because of their cordial relationship with its customers.
2. On 12-10-2015, Vaishnavi bought tab from Kamra Electronics costing her Rs. 20,00,000
after exchange of her old phone. Thereafter, she bought an additional insurance cover for
her O-Tab from Bhatia Insurance Co., which in totality costed her Rs. 22,00,000. She
hurriedly signed the terms and conditions in excitement of buying the tab.
3. Vaishnavi used the phone and was satisfied with its functioning. When she realized that
the guarantee of the phone would lapse in 8 days, in order to get an extended warranty,
she went to N.G. Service Providers, the only authorized service providers of Orange Inc.,
making a false claim that the camera of her phone wasn’t functioning properly, which got
rejected upon investigation.
4. On 08-04-2016 (Friday), at around 5:00 p.m., Vaaishnavi’s active got collided with a car
while she was standing on a red light. In the collision she got injured and tab got
damaged and its screen got cracked. On 11-04-2016 (Monday), Vaishnavi approached
N.G. Service Providers with all the receipts and required documents and pressed upon
replacing her phone as per insurance policy. However, her claim was rejected, citing that
the incident didn’t comply with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
5. She then contacted Bhatia Insurance Co., who accepted her claim subject to the terms of
insurance signed by her. When she got to know that she had to bear 50% of the charges
incurred to get her phone repaired, she felt cheated and approached Kamra Electronics to
confirm the policy terms of which she wasn’t made aware, however she was told that she
had herself signed the insurance policy.
6. Thereafter, Vaishnavi filed a suit against Kamra Electronics, Bhatia Insurance Co. and
N.G. Service Providers in Chandiland State Commission. Out of these, 2 parties got ex-
parte and the only litigating party from respondents was Bhatia Insurance Co. The order
of the Hon’ble commission was delivered in favour of Vaishnavi.
7. Aggrieved by the order, Kamra Electronics, Bhatia Insurance Co. and N.G. Service
providers have filed an appeal in the National Commission of Indiland.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 5

 UILS Intra Moot Competition, 2018

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondents humbly submits this memorandum in response to the appeal filed before this
Honourable National Commission of Indiland under Section 19 and 21 clause (a); sub clause (i)
of the Consumer Protection Act ,1986 which provides the Appellate Jurisdiction of National
Commission of the Indiland. It sets forth the facts and the laws on which the claims in the
present case are based and hence, its bare provisions read as under-

19.         Appeals—Any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Commission in exercise

of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 17 may prefer an appeal
against such order to the National Commission within a period of thirty days from the
date of the order in such form and manner as may be prescribed:

Provided that the National Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the
said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it
within that period.

Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms
of an order of the State Commission, shall be entertained by the National Commission
unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent. of the amount
or rupees thirty-five thousand, whichever is less:

21.        Jurisdiction of the National Commission. — Subject to the other provisions of this

Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction—

(a)  to entertain—

(i)   complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any,

claimed exceeds rupees  one  crore; and

(ii)  appeals against the orders of any State Commission; and

 (b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is
pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the
National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not
vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in
the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 6

 UILS Intra Moot Competition, 2018

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I
Whether or not Vaishnavi was aggrieved by the deficiency in services ?

ISSUE II
Whether or not the services provided by the Kamra Electronics can be termed as unfair trade
practices within the ambit of the consumer protection Act,1986?

ISSUE III
Whether or not the NG service provider can be made a party to the case ?

ISSUE IV
Whether or not the Chandiland State Commission had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint
filed by Vaishnavi?

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 7

 UILS Intra Moot Competition, 2018

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Whether or not the Chandiland State commission had the jurisdiction to entertain
complaint filed by Vaishnavi?

It is humbly submitted that the Chandiland State commission had the jurisdiction to entertain
complaint filed by Vaishnavi, i.e. the defendant, as her claim fell under the pecuniary jurisdiction
of the state commission as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Whether or not Vaishnavi was aggrieved by the deficiency in services?

It is humbly submitted that Vaishnavi was aggrieved by deficiency in service by all the three
appellants, i.e. Bhatia insurance Co. (A1), Kamra electronics (A2) and N.G. Services Providers
(A3).

A1 had included unreasonable terms in it’s policy and had failed to make the defendant aware
about the same. A2 also did not mention the nature of the policy to the defendant. A3 had
wrongfully rejected the defendant's claim even when it fell under the ambit of the losses covered
by the insurance policy.

Whether or not the services provided by the Kamra electronics can be termed as unfair
trade practices within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?

It is humbly submitted that the services provided by Kamra electronics i.e. A2 can be termed as
unfair trade practices within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Since the
defendant was a consumer of A2, it was supposed to provide her with genuine services.
However, a policy containing unreasonable terms was sold to her without making her aware
about the same.

Whether or not the NG Service Provider can be made party to the case?

There was an implied contract between the A1 and OP1 . A3 was the only authorised service
provider of the Tab . Therefore It is the duty of the the A3 to provide service to the consumer.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 8

 UILS Intra Moot Competition, 2018

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I

Whether or not the Chandiland State Commission had the jurisdiction to entertain
complaint filed by Vaishnavi?
It is humbly submitted that the honorable Chandiland State Commission had the jurisdiction to
entertain the complaint filed by now defendant, i.e. Vaishnavi, as the same fell under the
pecuniary jurisdiction of the state commission under s. 17(1)(a)(i) of Consumer Protection Act,
1986

17.        Jurisdiction of the State Commission. — (1) Subject to the other provisions of this

Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction—

(a)  to entertain—

(i)   complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if

any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty  lakhs but does not exceed
rupees one  crore

Vaishnavi, i.e. the defendant, was aggrieved by the services provided by the three appellants, i.e.
Bhatia Insurance Co. [A1], Kamra electronics [A2] and N.G. Serice Providers [A3] and had filed
a complaint against the same. The sum total of the value of the goods and services she availed
from the 3 parties was RS. 22,00,000/- which included the O-tab worth RS. 20,00,000/- and the
insurance policy worth RS. 2,00,000/-.

Since the same falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the state commission, the Chandiland
State Commission had the jurisdiction to entertain the claim.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 9

 UILS Intra Moot Competition, 2018

ISSUE II

Whether or not Vaishnavi was aggrieved by the deficiency in services?

It is humbly submitted that Vaishanvi, i.e. the defendant was aggrieved by deficiency in services.
“Deficiency” is defined under the consumer protection act, 1986 under s. 2(1)(g) as:

"deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature
and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time
being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or
otherwise in relation to any service;

It is humbly submitted that the defendant was aggrieved by deficiency in services on behalf of all
the three appellants, i.e., Bhatia insurance co. [A1], Kamra electronics [A2] and N.G. Service
Providers [A3].

[2.1]Bhatia insurance company (A1)

It is humbly submitted that the defendant was aggrieved by deficiency from Bhatia insurance
company i.e. A1.

[2.1.1] the defendant had bought an insurance policy from A1. This policy was pre-drafted at the
instance of the company, and thus qualifies for a standard contract form.

Standard contracts are defined as”those contracts which contain a large no. of terms and
conditions in “fine print” which restrict and often exclude liability under the contract. The
individual can hardly bargain with the massive organizations. He cant alter those terms or even
discuss them; they are for him to take or leave”1

In such form of contracts, where on party is in a weaker bargaining position, some rules are to be
considered to ensure that the weaker party is not exploited. One of such rules is of unreasonable
terms and terms against public policy.

Bhatia insurance co. i.e. A1 had involved an exception clause presented hereunder:

1
Avatar Singh, Law of Contract &Specific Relief Act, pg. 66 (Eastern book company)

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 10

 UILS Intra Moot Competition, 2018

f) The compensation amount payable in the event of a claim would vary according to the extent
of damage with the compensation amounting to maximum 50% of the physical damage/ claim
only.

It is humbly submitted that the above stated exception clause is an unreasonable term in the
insurance policy and the same worked to the detriment of vaishnavi.

In case of R.S. Deboo v. Hindlekar2, the receipt given against garments given for dry-cleaning
restricted launderer’s liability to 20 times the service charges or 50% of the value of garments,
whichever is less. It was held that the condition printed in the receipt was unreasonable, arbitrary
and opposed to public policy, and hence the same was void.

In case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath 3, it was held by
the Supreme Court:

“The courts will not enforce and will, when called upon to do so, strike down an unfair and
unreasonable contract, or an unfair and unreasonable clause in a contract, entered into between
parties who are not equal in bargaining power.”

[2.1.2]It is humbly submitted that the while signing the insurance policy, the defendant was not
made aware about the fact that in case such a loss occurs, she herself would have to bear 50% of
the total loss. Thus, the A1 failed in its duty to speak, in order to make the defendant aware about
the important terms and conditions of the contract which could fundamentally alter her will to
accept or reject the same.

In V. Srinivasa Pillai v. L.I.C. of India4, the apex court observed that

“ A contract of insurance being one uberrima fides (utmost good faith) is a contract which has
special features of its own and notwithstanding that prima facie it is supported by consideration
and has all the facts of a contract within the meaning of contract under the contract act, yet has
certain peculiar advantages and disadvantages depending upon the disclosure or non-disclosure

2
A.I.R 1995 BOM 68
3
A.I.R 1986 S.C. 1571
4
A.I.R 1977 S.C. 383-384

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 11

 UILS Intra Moot Competition, 2018

of material facts which form the foundation to create the consensus ad idem between the insurer
and insured”

10. It was observed in Banque keyser Illman SA v Skandia (UK) Insurance Co. Ltd 5.that as
far as insurance contract is concerned, the duty of the parties are as under:

"Subject to what follows, the duty is upon the assured, and the insurer, to disclose every material
fact to the other party..... So far as the insurer's duty is concerned, a fact is material and must be
disclosed to the assured if it is relevant to the nature of the risk sought to be covered, or to the
recoverability of a claim under the policy which a prudent assured would take into account in
deciding whether or not to place the risk with the proposed insurer."

[2.2] Kamra electronics (A2)

It is humbly submitted that the defendant was aggrieved by deficiency in services by Kamra
electronics I.e. A2 . It was from A2 electronics that the defendant had bought her O-Tab as well
as insurance policy. A2 sold her a policy which contained terms which are unreasonable and
opposed to public policy. Also, no efforts by A2 in making the buyer aware about the terms and
their nature contained in the policy. The principle of caveat venditor (seller beware) comes into
play here.

In the case of National Insurance Co. LTD. v. Krishna Devi and 4 ors 6. , it was held by the
hon'ble National consumer disputes redressal commission that:

It is high time that in a consumer oriented market, the rule of caveat emptor (let the buyer
beware) must give way to the rule caveat venditor (let the seller beware).

[2.3] N.G. Service Provider (A3)

It is humbly submitted that the defendant was aggrieved by deficiency in services by N.G.
Service Providers, i.e. A3. A3 was the only authorised service provider of Orange inc., the
company which dealt in export and import of O-Tab, and hence was bound to entertain the
defendant’s grievance when she approached them. Moreover, her claim by A3 was rejected on

5
(1990) 1QB 665 ,771-772
6

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 12

 UILS Intra Moot Competition, 2018

the ground that the incident didn’t comply with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
However, the incident did comply with the terms of insurance policy, the same are given below:

a) In case of accidental damage, the insurance covers only

physical damage/breakage/malfunction (partial damage)

and not full damage.

Since the defendant’s incident fell in the ambit of “accidental damage” and since the policy
terms undertook the coverage of “partial damage”. Also, the claim cannot be rejected on
technical grounds. Hence, not entertaining her claim fell under the ambit of deficiency of
services as the service providers failed to discharge their duty.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 13

 UILS Intra Moot Competition, 2018

ISSUE III

Whether or not the services provided by the Kamra Electronics can be termed as Unfair
Trade Practices within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act,1986?
It is humbly submitted that as per the stated facts Ms.Vaishnavi ,r/o H.NO. 1234 Sector-11,
Chandiland bought an O- tab from Kamra Electronics , SCO 69 Sector-14, Chandiland on 12-
10-2015 costing her 20,00,000 after the exchange of her old phone and also got an additional
cover insurance from A1 i.e. Bhatia Insurance Company . Therefore handset in totality costed
her Rs.22,00,000 . Moreover ,due to the collision her Tab was damaged and screen got cracked ,
The A3 i.e. N.G Service Providers refused to entertain her claim since the incident did not
comply with the terms and conditions of insurance policy, Aggrieved party went to A2 where
she discovered that there was the concealment of terms and conditions by Kamra Electronics as
it restricts or exempts it liability from paying 50% of the Damages . Therefore the Respondent is
a “consumer” under the Section 2(d) of THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986 -

(d) "consumer" means any person who-

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid
and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user
of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or
promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment
when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a
person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or
partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and
includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 4[hires or avails
of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly
promised, or under any system of deferred payment,

It is humbly submitted that the aggrieved party i.e. Vaishnavi purchased the Tab from Kamra
electronics which is a retail store in Chandiland. Along with the purchase of the TAB, Vaishnavi
got an additional insurance cover for her tab from Bhatia Insurance Company from the store of
Kamra electronics which in total amounted her 22,00,000. When her tab got cracked due to the

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 14

 UILS Intra Moot Competition, 2018

accident and then she got to knew about the term of insurance policy that she was to pay 50% of
the charges incurred to get the phone repaired, it was the time when she felt cheated and got
infuriated. As stated in the Case National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Krishna Devi & Ors7..

“… It may not be out of place to observe at this juncture that it is high time that in a consumer
oriented market, the rule of Caveat Emptor (Let the buyer beware) must give way to the rule
Caveat Venditor (Let the seller beware) ...”

At the time of the purchase of the TAB the aggrieved party was not informed about the
unreasonable terms of the policy, the insurance policy which she signed in excitement and hurry
of getting her new TAB. It was the duty of the seller i.e. Kamra Electronics to bring into
knowledge of the buyer i.e. Vaishnavi about the terms and conditions of the policy, as stated in
the Case M/s Maheshwari Steels v/s Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited,
Through Additional Chief Engineer, City Circle, 32 Bungalow, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) &
Ors..8

“...Caveat venditor' : A maxim meaning "Let the seller beware" (Broom) "If the seller
wishes to secure himself from future responsibility in case the article sold should
afterwards be found to be different in kind or quality from what the party supposed it to be,
he must take care or provide against such responsibility by a particular agreement with the
purchaser."

When the consumer i.e. Vaishnavi was procuring the insurance policy the seller i.e. Kamra
electronics mislead her by concealing the terms and conditions of the insurance policy which is
considered as "unfair trade practice" under the Section 2(r)(vi) of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986;

“.. [( r) "unfair trade practice" means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the
sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or
unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely;-

(vi)makes a false or misleading representation concerning the need for, or the usefulness of, any
goods or services.”

8
W.P.(C)No.2700/2017

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 15

 UILS Intra Moot Competition, 2018

This leads us to the fact that it was the duty of A2 i.e. Kamra electronics to disclose all the terms
of the insurance policy to the OP No.1 i.e. Vaishnavi. The act of not disclosing the terms and
conditions, and misleading is absolutely an unfair trade practice by the A2 under the ambit of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 16

 UILS Intra Moot Competition, 2018

ISSUE IV

Whether or not the NG Service Provider can be made party to the case?
It is humbly submitted that the OP No.1 i.e. Vaishanvi purchased the O- Tab of the Orange Inc.
and an additional insurance policy from the A1 i.e. Kamra Electronics, whereas the A3 i.e. NG
service provider is the only authorised service provider of Orange Inc. The OP No.1 met with an
accident and in the accident the screen of her O-Tab got cracked. Following the incident she
approached the A3 with all receipts and required documents. However, they refused to entertain
her claim. It was the duty of the A3 to entertain the claim of the OP No. 1 as they were the only
authorised service provider. After the agreement of Sale between A1 and OP No.1, the A3
became the party of the contract "impliedly" as they will be providing service to the customer in
case of any default in the gadget till the time it is in warranty. In accordance to the policy, the
time period of warranty and guarantee of the O-Tab was 6 months. Being the authorised service
providers it was their duty to entertain the claim of OP No.1.

Quasi-Contract - A quasi contract is a contract that is created by the court when no such
official contract exists between the parties, and there is a dispute with regard to payment for
goods or services provided. Courts create quasi contracts to prevent a party from being unjustly
enriched, or from benefitting from the situation when he does not deserve to do so.

Mahabir Kishore & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh9

“…The principle of unjust enrichment requires: first, that the defendant has been 'enriched' by
the receipt of a "benefit"; secondly, that this enrichment is "at the expense of the plaintiff"; and
thirdly, that the retention of the enrichment be unjust. This justifies restitution. Enrichment may
take the form of direct advantage to the recipient wealth such as by the receipt of money or
indirect one for instance where inevitable expense has been saved. Another analysis of the
obligation is of quasi contract. It was said; "if the defendant be under an obligation from the ties
of natural justice, to refund; the law implies a debt, and give this action rounded in the equity of
the plaintiff's case, as it were, upon a contract (quasi ex contracts) as the Roman law expresses
it…"

9
1990 AIR 313, 1989 SCR (3) 596

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 17

 UILS Intra Moot Competition, 2018

Under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act 1872,

Compensation for failure to discharge obligation resembling those created by contract.-When

an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged
, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the same compensation
from the party in default ,as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his
contract.

In the present situation, according to the terms and conditions of the policy of the insurance the
A2 i.e. Bhatia Insurance Company was to insure the OP No.1. In order to get the damage of the
O-Tab repaired, the A2 was to pay 50% of the total amount and rest 50% by OP No.1 to the A3
in future. This future consideration is enough to prove any contract between the OP No.1 and the
A3.

According to section 2(d) of Indian Contract Act, 1872- consideration means "When at the
desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or
does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or abstain from doing something, such act or
abstinence is called a consideration for the promisee."

Tirumulu Subbu Chetti vs Arunachalam Chettiar10

"..It was, however, argued that as under Section 2, Clause (d) of the Contract Act the
consideration might be provided by some other person,.."

This leads us to the fact that OP No.1 i.e. Vaishnavi is the consumer of A3 i.e. NG service
provider. It is the duty of the A3 to give service to its consumer and entertain the claim which
was made by OP No.1 under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, That's why they can
be made party to this particular case.

10
124 Ind Cas 55

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 18

 UILS Intra Moot Competition, 2018

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsel for the
Defendant humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to adjudge, hold and declare:

1. That, Vaishnavi, i.e. the defendant was aggrieved by deficiency in services.

2. That, services provided by Kamra electronics be termed as unfair trade practices under
the ambit of consumer protection act, 1986.
3. That, N.G. Service provider be made a party to the case.

And pass any order that this Hon'ble court may deem fit in there interest of equity, justice
and good conscience.

And for this act of kindness, the counsel for the defendant shall duty bound forever pray.

Sd/-

(Counsel for defendant)

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 19