TNNLU – CLINICAL MUNICIPAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023.

TEAM CODE – 30

TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI

CLINICAL MUNICIPAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE TRICHINOPOLY CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION U/S 34 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

COMPLAINT NO._____ OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

MR. SAMMY…………………………………………………..….COMPLAINANT

V.

THE MILLENNIAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGIES (MIT)………...RESPONDENT

-MEMORIAL SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-

1|Page MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TNNLU – CLINICAL MUNICIPAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES:............................................................................................................3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................................... 4
STATEMENT OF FACTS:..............................................................................................................5
ISSUES RAISED ............................................................................................................................ 7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ........................................................................................................8
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................................9
ISSUE – III – WHETHER THERE WERE ANY UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND/OR UNFAIR
CONTRACT BY THE MILLENIAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AS ENUMERATED UNDER
SECTION 2 (47) AND 2 (46) OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019., ? ..........................9
[3.1]. MIT’S RECEIPT E- MAIL DOESN’T AMOUNT TO DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL
INFORMATION .....................................................................................................................9
[3.1.1]. WHAT CONSTITUTE PERSONAL INFORMATION....................................................9
[3.1.2]. IS LTI OTHER PERSON IN THIS TRANSACTION: ................................................ 11
[3.2]. THE REFUSAL TO REFUND THE FORM FEES DOESN’T AMOUNT TO UNFAIR TRADE
PRACTICE. ......................................................................................................................... 11
[3.3]. DOES THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE COMPLAINANT AND THE OPPOSITE PARTY IS
AN UNFAIR CONTRACT...................................................................................................... 13
ISSUE IV – WHETHER MILLENIAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY IS LIABLE TO PAY
COMPENSATION TO MR. SAMMY? ........................................................................................ 16
PRAYER .................................................................................................................................... 17

2|Page MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TNNLU – CLINICAL MUNICIPAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES:
LEGISLATIONS:

 Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and

Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011
 Personal data protection bill, 2019.

LIST OF CASES:

 Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal
(13.11.2019 - SC) : MANU/SC/1561/2019.
 Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner , (2013) 1 SCC 212.
 Whatsapp LLC v. Union of India, WP(c) No. 1323 of 2021
 Manohar Nathurao Samarth vs. Marotrao and Ors., AIR 1979 SC 1084.
 Gulbahar vs Presiding Officer, CWP No.15088 of 2015
 Ram Jethmalani v. union of India, (2011) 8 SCC1
 Mrs. Hardesh Mehta v. Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Complaint No. 07 of 2021

 M/S Nirmal Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd v. National Insurance Company Ltd., Consumer
Complaint No. 16 of 2021 (Chandigarh).
 Sri. Suman Das v. The Chairman, Tata, Case No.A.7.2021 (Tripura).
 S.R. Manickavasagam vs G. Muthuveeraswami Naidu And Ors, Manu/TN/0125/1963

3|Page MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TNNLU – CLINICAL MUNICIPAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted that the complainant has approached the Trichinopoly District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission invoking its jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 which provides that the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to
entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not
exceed one crore rupees.

The opposite party reserves the right to challenge jurisdiction and is only responding to the
complaint filed by the complainant.

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, issues, contentions and arguments in the
present case.

4|Page MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TNNLU – CLINICAL MUNICIPAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
I. BACKGROUND OF PARTIES:

The Millennial Council (MC) is an organization that offers Cybersecurity certification,

education, and training. The MC was established in March 2010 and has certified over 2 lakh
professionals worldwide. The MC established Authorised Training Centres (ATCs) for the same
in more than 100 cities in Indo. MC also partnered with institutes to offer ethical hacking courses
as MC’s official academic partner.

Sammy, is a software trainer working at Lovo Technologies Institute (LTI). LTI provides free
training courses in IT software but it does not provide training courses on ethical hacking. In an
attempt to become an official academic partner of the MC, LTI offered to sponsor a few selected
trainer employees to be certified in ethical hacking by MC. LTI chose 10 of its employees to be
undertaking the certification course. Sammy was one of them.

The Millennial Institute of Technologies (MIT) is an Authorised Training Centre of the MC

located in Trichinopoly. LTI paid the total fees of Rs. 5,00,000 to MIT on June 14, 2022 to train
its 10 selected employees.

II. ISSUES IN THE CLASSES AND THE EXAMINATION:

The classes were to be held every week on Sundays from August 2022 to January 2023. The
course duration was for six months and it had 20 modules in total. All students enrolled in the
course would undertake a final test in February 2023. Sammy was not satisfied with the course
instructor’s approach after attending 2 classes, indeed he went absent for the rest of the classes

There were two ways to obtain the ethical hacking certification of the MC. The first was to
attend the official training courses offered by the MC through its ATCs and official academic
partners. The second was to directly appear for the exam without training when there are at least
2 years of experience in the information security field. Sammy thought to appear for the exam
through the second method. He applied for the exam on MIT’s website by paying Rs. 10,000 as
an exam eligibility form fee and submitted the eligibility form.

The form contained a section for the applicant to list a boss, supervisor, or department lead who
will act as their verifier. MIT would reach out to the listed verifier to confirm the applicant’s

5|Page MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TNNLU – CLINICAL MUNICIPAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023.

experience as it is a prerequisite for appearing in the exam. Since Sammy was associated with
LTI, MIT shared a receipt e-mail attaching the filled-in exam eligibility form and the guide to the
further application process with both Sammy and LTI.

III. ISSUE OF MOONLIGHTING:

Sammy had actually been moonlighting LTI for the last 4 years. He started a second job with
Tipro Technologies after work hours at LTI. He had a good experience in information security
through his job at Tipro. So Sammy listed his supervisor’s name at Tipro to act as his verifier for
the exam eligibility form.

Due to MIT’s receipt e-mail, LTI became aware of Sammy’s unethical conduct of having a
second job. Sammy was fired immediately by LTI. LTI informed Sammy’s supervisor at Tipro.
Sammy’s supervisor refused to verify Sammy’s experience at Tipro and also fired Sammy. He
invested his savings money in the exam eligibility form thinking that it will be successful. he
sought a refund of the form fees with MIT, it was denied as it was non-refundable. Sammy filed
a complaint against MIT at the Trichinopoly Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking
compensation. The District Commission listed the case to hear arguments from both parties.

6|Page MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TNNLU – CLINICAL MUNICIPAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023.

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE – I - WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE

TRICHINOPOLY CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION?

ISSUE – II - WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN ANY DEFICIENCY OF SERVICE BY

MILLENNIAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION
ACT, 2019.,?

ISSUE – III – WHETHER THERE WERE ANY UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND/OR
UNFAIR CONTRACT BY THE MILLENIAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AS
ENUMERATED UNDER SECTION 2 (47) AND 2 (46) OF THE CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT, 2019., ?

ISSUE IV – WHETHER MILLENIAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY IS LIABLE TO PAY

COMPENSATION TO MR. SAMMY?

7|Page MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TNNLU – CLINICAL MUNICIPAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE – III – WHETHER THERE WERE ANY UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND/OR UNFAIR
CONTRACT BY THE MILLENIAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AS ENUMERATED UNDER
SECTION 2 (47) AND 2 (46) OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019., ?

It is submitted that the MIT cannot be said to be committed unfair trade practice and/or unfair
contract, the reasons are as follows.

Firstly, for the issue of MIT’s Receipt E- Mail, it should be dealt with the understanding of
section 2(47) (ix) of the CPA, two ingredients are to be satisfied they i) Is LTI is other person in
this transaction, ii) information in the receipt mail is a personal information. From the clear
understanding of the facts and circumstances its understood that Mr. Sammy has joined the MIT
through LTI and there were no cause of action to prove that Sammy withdraw from the contract
of availing ethical hacking certificate as a employee of the LTI thus the mail amount to affiliate
disclosure of information and not violative of personal rights.
Secondly, the information shared is not a personal information even its considered as a personal
information there is clear flow of consent from the side of the complainant to share the
information to other person under certain conditions and circumstances as agreed by the privacy
policy contract.
Thirdly, for the refund of the form fees, the complaint must fulfill the ingredients of section 2
(47)(Viii), since there is no deficiency of service availed by the complainant it’s pointless in
arguing for claiming compensation or refund of form fees.
Finally, with the issue of unfair contract under section 2 (46) of CPA Act, 2019. There
established a clear flow of offer and acceptance by the way of checking the privacy policy. The
policy is not an unfair one as Section 2(46) defines an unfair contract as one that has terms which
cause significant change in the rights of the consumer. The provision includes six ways in which
such significant change could be caused. None of these six scenarios are in effect here

8|Page MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TNNLU – CLINICAL MUNICIPAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE – III – Whether There Were Any Unfair Trade Practices And/Or Unfair Contract By The
Millenial Institute Of Technology As Enumerated Under Section 2 (47) And 2 (46) Of The
Consumer Protection Act, 2019., ?

¶1. It’s humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that MIT’s receipt e-mail doesn’t amount to
disclosure of personal information of Sammy [3.1], the refusal to refund the form fees doesn’t
amount to unfair trade practice [3.2] Does the contract between the Complainant and the
opposite party is an Unfair Contract [3.3]

[3.1]. MIT’S RECEIPT E- MAIL DOESN’T AMOUNT TO DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL

INFORMATION
¶2. As per section 2 (47) (ix) of the Consumer protection Act, 20191, disclosure of personal
information without consent can be considered as unfair trade practice, however whether or not it
amounts to unfair trade practice depends on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.
Section 2 (47) (ix) of the Act, read as follows, “disclosing to other person any personal
information given in confidence by the consumer unless such disclosure is made in accordance
with the provisions of any law for the time being in force”.

[3.1.1]. WHAT CONSTITUTE PERSONAL INFORMATION.

¶3. In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner 2 case the court
classified the relationship of the employer and the employee with regards to personal information
and held that “The performance of an employee/officer in an organisation is primarily a matter
between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service
Rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no
relationship to any public activity or public interest.”.3

1
Consumer Protection Act,2019. ჽ 2 (47) (ix).
2
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner , (2013) 1 SCC 212.
3
Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (13.11.2019 - SC) :
MANU/SC/1561/2019

9|Page MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TNNLU – CLINICAL MUNICIPAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023.

¶4. Therefore from the understanding LTI is the employer of the Complainant Mr. Sammy, thus
there prevails an employer and employee relationship between them, also LTI had sponsored
their 10 employees for undertaking the certificate course in ethical hacking. 4 Thereby there is
clear reasonable nexus to believe that the employer LTI and Mr. Sammy the employee has a
cordial relationship, thus sharing the email receipt doesn’t constitute disclosure of personal
information. Also disclosure of this information has no public interest.

¶5. In Whatsapp v. Union of India,5 the fairness of a privacy policy contract was questioned. It
was held that users have the option to accept a privacy policy and their informed consent is
obtained when they read through it or agree that they’ve read through it. It is important to note
here that the privacy policy in question in the aforementioned case was much different from that
of MIT’s but in a detrimental sense to the strength of their arguments. Whatsapp collects much
more personal data and shares them without consent specifically while doing so. With privacy
policy like that of Whatsapp being held to be valid, then the same principle applies to MIT, and
even MIT haven’t shared any sensitive information.

¶6. In the Privacy policy its clearly mentioned that “you agree to our use of your information
(including sensitive personal information) in accordance with this Privacy Notice, as may be
amended from time to time by eccouncil.org at its discretion. You also agree and consent to us
collecting, storing, processing, transferring, and sharing information (including sensitive
personal information) related to you with third parties or service providers for the purposes as
set out in this Privacy Notice.”6 Thus it could be inferred that there is a clear flow of consent to
store, transfer and share information including the sensitive personal information in good faith to
the edicts of the law or comply with the legal process served on MIT.

¶7. MIT’s privacy policy is also in compliance with the Information Technology (Reasonable
Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011, 7
which provide guidelines for the collection, usage, and sharing of sensitive personal data or

4
Moot Proposition, ¶5.
5
Whatsapp LLC v. Union of India, WP(c) No. 1323 of 2021.
6
Moot Proposition, Annexure Page 2.
7
The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or
Information) Rules, 2011.

10 | P a g e MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TNNLU – CLINICAL MUNICIPAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023.

information. MIT’s policy also complies with the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 8, which is
currently in the process of being enacted as law.

[3.1.2]. IS LTI OTHER PERSON IN THIS TRANSACTION:

¶8. It is said that LTI sponsored Mr. Sammy for the Ethical hacking Course in order to improve
their company standards, and Mr. Sammy didn’t withdraw himself from the classes, he just went
absent from attending the classes. As there are two ways in obtaining ethical hacking certificate,
Sammy choose the second mode of enrolling for the exam but it doesn’t mean that his chain of
connection LTI disconnected and he approached separately. 9

¶9. Mr. Sammy had used his second modus operandi of availing exam for ethical hacking
therefore the argument of saying the complainant approached independently is void, since the
connection between the LTI are in existence, there are reasonable nexus to believe that Mr.
Sammy is Part of LTI thus the receipt mail has been sent, receipt mail is nothing but the
acknowledgement Mail of informing your recorded response. 10

[3.2]. THE REFUSAL TO REFUND THE FORM FEES DOESN’T AMOUNT TO UNFAIR TRADE
PRACTICE.
¶10. The complainant’s claim for refund arises after he was fired from his two jobs at MIT and
Tipro Technologies respectively, along with the exam eligibility form being rejected and the
money from his savings for put forward as the examination fees.11 Before addressing the issue of
refusal to refund lets First look into section 2 (47) (Viii) of the CPA, 2019. That deals with the
refusal of refund the texts of the provision is as follows.
“refusing, after selling goods or rendering services, to take back or withdraw defective goods or
to withdraw or discontinue deficient services and to refund the consideration thereof, if paid,
within the period stipulated in the bill or cash memo or receipt or in the absence of such
stipulation, within a period of thirty days”12

8
Personal data protection bill, 2019.
9
Moot Proposition, ¶ 7.
10
Moot Proposition,¶ 8, 9.
11
Moot Proposition, ¶11.
12
Consumer protection Act, 2019. ჽ 2 (47) (Viii)

11 | P a g e MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TNNLU – CLINICAL MUNICIPAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023.

¶11. So here the key take away is to discontinue the deficient service and to refund the
consideration thereof, thus first the complainant states deficiency of service, once its proved that
there is no deficiency of service then there is no point in asking for refund of the examination
fees or compensation.

¶12. As we have already discussed in the above paragraphs MIT collects personally identifiable
information which can then be collected, stored, processed, transferred and shared. 13 It can also
receive information from other sources to add to its account information. Secondly and most
importantly, MIT uses the personal information for delivering the services required which
includes administering and processing certification exams. Further, MIT can also collect
information without consent if it is to “(a) conform to the edicts of the law or comply with the
legal process served on MIT or the site; (b) protect and defend the rights or property of MIT;
and, (c) act under exigent circumstances to protect the personal safety of users of MIT or the
public.”14

¶13. Now, the complainant applied for the MC Certification Exam through MIT’s website which
indicates that the privacy policy comes into play as it states that by merely using the website, the
user consents to the practices mentioned in the statement. Coming to MIT’s actions per se,
firstly, they reached out to the verifier and shared a receipt email with Lovo Technologies
Institute (“LTI”) where the complainant worked. Then upon the withdrawal of the verifier’s
verification, they rejected the exam eligibility form and did not provide a refund. The conducting
of the exam and the requirements for the same are immaterial because these were authorized by
the Indo Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. 15

¶14. It is hereby contended that none of the above actions contravened the privacy policy
statement because sharing a receipt email nothing but similar of acknowledgement email for the
application made thus sending such a email are in accordance with the policy due to the “good
faith belief that the action is necessary” which in turn allows MIT to disclose personal

13
Moot proposition, Annexure 1 at page 1.
14
Moot Proposition, Annexure 1 at page 3.
15
Moot proposition, ¶ 10.

12 | P a g e MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TNNLU – CLINICAL MUNICIPAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023.

information without consent. The usage of the personal information is also solely for the purpose
of administration and processing of the certification exam.

¶15. Furthermore, an important point is the conditions given for MIT to be able to collect
information without consent. The first point provides that conforming to the edicts of law can be
one such situation. In the given circumstances, the complainant was in the wrong for
moonlighting and working two jobs. In such an exceptional situation, the right thing to do from
MIT’s perspective was to disclose that he was in the wrong to LTI, through information that they
previously had about the relationship between the two. There can be no denying that
moonlighting is not something that conforms to the edicts of law. Indian courts in cases like
Manohar Nathurao Samarth vs. Marotrao and Ors.16 and Gulbahar vs Presiding Officer17 have
made it clear that moonlighting is something that warrants termination of employment, while
also opening up possibilities for strict disciplinary actions. Therefore MIT’s action were in
accordance with the privacy policy meaning it does not amount to deficiency of service, thus the
reasonable element of deficiency of service is disproved thus there is no question of refusal of
refund.

[3.3]. DOES THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE COMPLAINANT AND THE OPPOSITE PARTY IS AN
UNFAIR CONTRACT.
¶16. Its humbly submitted that the privacy policy contract between the complainant and the
opposite party is valid contract and it is not an ‘unfair contract’, Section 2 (46) of CPA, 2019
defines unfair contract as “a contract between a manufacturer or trader or service provider on one
hand, and a consumer on the other, having such terms which cause significant change in the
rights of such consumer, including the following, namely:

(i) Requiring manifestly excessive security deposits to be given by a consumer for the
performance of contractual obligations; or

(ii) imposing any penalty on the consumer, for the breach of contract thereof which is wholly
disproportionate to the loss occurred due to such breach to the other party to the contract; or

(iii) Refusing to accept early repayment of debts on payment of applicable penalty; or

16
Manohar Nathurao Samarth vs. Marotrao and Ors., AIR 1979 SC 1084.
17
Gulbahar vs Presiding Officer, CWP No.15088 of 2015.

13 | P a g e MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TNNLU – CLINICAL MUNICIPAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023.

(iv) Entitling a party to the contract to terminate such contract unilaterally, without reasonable
cause; or

(v) Permitting or has the effect of permitting one party to assign the contract to the detriment of
the other party who is a consumer, without his consent; or

(vi) imposing on the consumer any unreasonable charge, obligation or condition which puts such
consumer to disadvantage;18

¶17. The provision includes six ways in which such significant change could be caused. It is
hereby submitted that the contract concerned here does not cause significant change in the rights
of the consumer and that none of the six provisions are attracted by it. The contract in question
here is the privacy policy statement of the opposite party's website because it is through the site
that the complainant applied for the Millenial Council (“MC”) Certification Exam. In this
respect, it is submitted that it is the privacy policy through which the opposite party's acts under
challenge are justified, and further that the privacy policy is not an unfair contract. It is
noteworthy here that there was an opt-out policy as well in the policy. The policy also becomes a
contract as it meets the essential ingredients such as offer, acceptance, intention, capacity, and
consent, with personal information as consideration. 19

¶18. In Mrs. Hardesh Mehta vs Parkwood Developers Pvt.Ltd.,20 it was held that “loading with
unfair unilateral terms” would make a contract unfair and that one sided terms infringe upon the
basic rights of a citizen. Similarly, in M/S Nirmal Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd vs National Insurance
Company Ltd.,21 it was held that as long as the essentials of a contract are kept up with and it
does not fall within the meaning of an ‘unfair contract’ under Section 2(46), a consumer contract
will be valid. Further, in Sri. Suman Das vs The Chairman, Tata Aia Life Insurance Company,22
the State Commission held that there can be no question of using unfairness of contract as a
ground when there is nothing that causes significant change in the rights of consumers in the
contract. Such complaints are liable to be quashed.

18
Consumer Protection Act, 2019. ჽ 2 (46).
19
Ram Jethmalani v. union of India, (2011) 8 SCC1. Essentials of a valid contract.
20
Mrs. Hardesh Mehta v. Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Complaint No. 07 of 2021 (Chandigarh).
21
M/S Nirmal Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd v. National Insurance Company Ltd., Consumer Complaint No. 16 of 2021
(Chandigarh).
22
Sri. Suman Das v. The Chairman, Tata, Case No.A.7.2021 (Tripura).

14 | P a g e MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TNNLU – CLINICAL MUNICIPAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023.

¶19. MIT’s privacy policy is also in compliance with the Information Technology (Reasonable
Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011,
which provide guidelines for the collection, usage, and sharing of sensitive personal data or
information. MIT’s policy also complies with the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, which is
currently in the process of being enacted as law.

¶20. Therefore, having established above that the complainant doesn’t involved in any unfair
trade practices and it can also be stated that the contract between the complainant and other party
is not unfair.

15 | P a g e MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TNNLU – CLINICAL MUNICIPAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023.

ISSUE IV – WHETHER MILLENIAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY IS LIABLE TO PAY

COMPENSATION TO MR. SAMMY?

¶21. The complainant’s claim for compensation is clearly centered around being fired from his
two jobs at MIT and Tipro Technologies respectively, along with the exam eligibility form being
rejected. However, the actions of the opposite party in this regard have been entirely in
consonance with the privacy policy contract

¶22. In the case of S.R. Manickavasagam vs G. Muthuveeraswami Naidu And Ors23. The court
held that the essential pan of the cause of action on which relief is claimed in the present case is
of the mistake on part of the government. Therefore form the analysis of the case mentioned
above compensation need not be paid if the mistake is on part of the one seeking compensation,
therefore mistake on the side complainant Mr. Sammy was clearly established in the above
issues therefore, there is no need to pay compensation to the complainant by MIT.

¶23. As discussed in the aforementioned issue regarding refund of examination fee, there was no
deficiency of services availed by the complainant from the MIT, therefore the element of refund
is not fulfilled thus the complainant is not entitled for any fund and the refusal of refund is
validated.

23
S.R. Manickavasagam vs G. Muthuveeraswami Naidu And Ors, Manu/TN/0125/1963.

16 | P a g e MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TNNLU – CLINICAL MUNICIPAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023.

PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most
humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to adjudge and declare

 That the Petition is not maintainable before the Trichinopoly Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission
 That there has been no ‘deficiency’ of service on part of MIT, as under Section 2(11) of
the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
 That the activities of MIT doesn't amount to unfair trade practices and/or Unfair contract
as enumerated under section 2 (47) and section 2 (46) of the consumer protection Act,
2019.
 That there was no deficiency in the services availed by the complainant, Mr.Sammy is
not entitled to any compensation or Refund of the form fees.

AND/OR

Pass any other order, in light of justice, equity and good conscience. All of which is most humbly
submitted.

Sd/

On Behalf of the opposite party

17 | P a g e MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT