COMMERCIAL

LAW
PROJECT
 CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the project entitled commercial law submitted by
Ananya Saini student of B.com part D (semester 1) of the Department
of Commerce session 2022-23 of Guru Gobind Singh College for
Women, Sector 26, Chandigarh, is a bonafide work done by her under
my guidance and supervision and project represents independent work
on the part of the candidate.

Dr Jaspreet Kaur Ms. Amanjot Hira

Head of Department Supervisory Teacher
Guru Gobind Singh College for Women
Sector 26, Chandigarh
 DECLARATION
I Ananya Saini, hereby declare that the project work entitled is an
authenticated work carried out by me under the guidance of Ms,
Amanjot Hira for the fulfilment of the award of degree of Bachelor of
Commerce and this work has not been submitted for similar purpose
anywhere else except to Department of Commerce.

Signature of the Student

CASE LAW ON
CONSUMER
PROTECTION
 CASE 1
Manjeet Singh Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr:
In this case, the appellant had purchased a second - hand truck under
a hire purchase agreement. The vehicle was insured by the respondent
insurance company. One day when he was driving the truck, a
passenger asked him to stop the truck and give him a lift. When he
stopped the truck, the passenger brutally assaulted the driver and fled
with the vehicle. An fir was lodged and the respondent finance
company was intimated about the theft. However, the insurance
company rejected the claim on the ground of breach of terms of the
policy. The complainant approached district consumer disputes forum,
state commission and national commission to compensate him for the
loss. All of them had rejected the case. So, finally he approached the
supreme court
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court held that the appellant was not at all in fault. It can
be considered as a breach of the policy, but not a fundamental breach
to bring the insurance policy to an end and terminate the insurance
policy. The two - judge bench of Supreme Court directed the
respondent insurance company to pay 75% of the insured amount
along with 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing the claim. The court
also directed the insurance company to pay sum of Rs. 1, 00, 000 as
compensation.
MY UNDERSTANDING
The decision given by supreme court was right . the compensation
should be given to the aggrieved .
 CASE 2
V.N. Shrikhande Vs. Anita Sena Fernandes
The petitioner - Anita Sena, who was a nurse by profession underwent
a stone removal surgery from her gall bladder but claimed that she
continued to experience pain. After 9 years, it was detected that the
reason behind this was that a gauge was left in her abdomen by the
surgeon who operated her. This required a second surgery. Therefore,
she filed the charges for negligence and compensation of Rs.50 Lakhs
was demanded by the petitioner. She filed the case against the doctor
for his negligence before Supreme Court.
JUDGEMENT
Supreme Court rejected the case on limitation and evidentiary grounds.
The court held that when nurse was working in the same hospital
where the surgery happened. Then, in the past nine years, why did not
she contact the doctor. During the discovery of gauge in the abdomen,
appropriate action could have been taken on an immediate basis
without requiring the respondent to pay. But she chose to consume
pain killers. Her long silence dismissed the complaint and she was
entitled to no compensation.
MY UNDERSTANDING
Anita was not at fault in this situation, in my opinion, as she was
unaware that a gauge had been left inside her abdomen and may have
been terrified to remove it, leading her to consider taking painkillers. If
the Supreme Court rules that she was at blame, she could have
received some compensation because, in the end, it was the nurse who
was at fault.
 CASE 3
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation (KPTC) Vs. Ashok
Iron Works Private Limited
Ashok Iron Works, a private company which manufactures iron had
applied for obtaining electricity from the state’s power generation
company - the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation
(hereinafter KTPC) for commencing its iron production. Inspite of
paying charges and obtaining confirmation for the supply of 1500 KVA
energy in February 1991, the actual supply did not begin until ten
months later, in November 1991. This delay incurred a huge loss for
Ashok Iron Works. This company had filed a complaint to the
Belgaum Consumer Dispute Forum and later Karnataka High Court.
The legal argument by KTPC was that the complaint was not
maintainable as the consumer Protection Act 1986 excludes
commercial supply of goods. It also made an argument that the
company in engaged in manufacturing iron and intended to use it for
commercial consumption which is excluded under the Act. He also
said that, the complainant is not a `person’ under Section 2(1)(m) of
the Act, 1986.
JUDGEMENT
In this case, Supreme Court gave his rulings. The Supreme Court
mentioned the General Clause Act that includes a private company
within the purview of the definition of a “Person.” It was also held that
the supply of electricity by the KPTC to a consumer would be covered
under Section 2(1)(o) being ‘service.’ Also, if the electrical energy
consumer is not provided to a consumer in time as is agreed upon,
then under Section (2)(1)(g), then there can be a case for deficiency in
service. Therefore, the clause stating “supply” of goods for commercial
purpose would not be applied. The Supreme Court sent this case back
to District Forum for retrial on these grounds.
 RIGHT TO
INFORMATION
CASES
 CASE 1
Canara Bank Versus CS Shyam and ors. Civil appeal no. 22 of
2009
FACTS OF THE CASE
Information regarding transfer and posting of the entire clerical staff
from 01.01.2002 to 31.07.2006 in all the branches of Canara Bank.
This information was in relation to the personal details of individual
employees such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of
promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she
is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court disagreed with the order of the Central
Information Commission, and the Kerala High Court. It did not give
any reasons but effectively ruled that in the light of the Girish
Deshpande judgement it ruled against information being given. It has
truncated Section 8 (1) (j) and ruled that all personal information of
public servants including details of transfers is covered by Section 8 (1)
(j). This is a truncated reading of the Section 8 (1) (j) and cannot be
justified.
MY UNDERSTANDING
Decision given by supreme court was correct and applicable on
everyone .
 CASE 2
Jiju Lukose v. State of Kerala (Kerala High Court, 2014)
FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case, a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a direction to
upload the copy of the FIR in the website of the police station and to
make available copies of the FIR to the accused immediately on
registration of the FIR was sought for. The Petitioner had alleged that
inspite of the FIR being registered, the petitioner received its copy only
after 2 months. Till the petitioner could obtain a copy of the FIR, the
petitioner and his family members were in dark about the nature of the
allegations levelled against the petitioner.
Petitioner’s further contended in the case that in view of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 all public officers were under obligation to put
all information recorded in the public domain. The FIR which is
lodged is to be put on the website of the police station, so that anyone
can assess the FIR including a person staying outside the country.
JUDGMENT
The CIC in the case held that FIR is a public document, however,
where an FIR is covered by the provisions under Section 8(1) of the
RTI Act, it need not be disclosed to the citizens till investigation is
completed. But it can be claimed by the Informant and the accused as
per legal provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as a
matter of legal right.
The provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are specific to
this effect, that is, the supply of copy of FIR to the accused is
contemplated only at a stage after proceedings are being initiated on a
police report by the competent Magistrate.
 That application for copy of the FIR can also be submitted by any
person under the 2005 Act. It is however, relevant to note that whether
in a particular application police authorities are claiming exemption
under 8(1) of the RTI Act is a question which has to be determined by
the police authorities by taking appropriate decision by the competent
authority. In event no such decision is taken to claim exemption under
Section 8 of the 2005 Act, the police authorities are obliged to provide
for copy of the FIR on an application under the RTI Act.
MY UNDERSTANDING
The decision of supreme court was absolutely correct as FIR cannot
be disclosed .
 CASE 3
Dhananjay Tripathi v. Banaras Hindu University, 2016
FACTS OF THE CASE
The applicant had applied for information relating to the treatment and
subsequent death of a student in a university hospital due to alleged
negligence of the doctors attending him. The appellant was, however,
denied the information by the PIO of the university saying that the
information sought could not be provided under section 8 (1)(g) of the
RTI Act. No further reasons as to how the information sought could
not be provided under the RTI Act was given.
JUDGMENT
The Commission has held that quoting the provisions of section 8 (1)
of the RTI Act to deny the information without giving any justification
or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply not
acceptable, and clearly amount to malafide denial of legitimate
information. The public authority must provide reasons for rejection
the particular application. The Commission further held that not
providing the reasons of how the application for information was
rejected according to a particular provision of the Act would attract
penalties under section 20(1) of the Act.
MY UNDERSTANDING
I totally agree with the decision of supreme court as application could
not be denied without providing reasonable grounds for it .