Before The Hon'Ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum COMPLAINT No. - OF

GROUP: D6
BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM
COMPLAINT No.__________ OF
IN THE MATTER OF:
…….Complainant
VERSUS
1. NEMA Insurance Company

2. MGRT Bank
……Opposite Party
COMPLAINT RECEIVED UNDER SECTION 11 OF THECONSUMER

PROTECTION ACT, 1986, CONCERNING THE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE
DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(1)(r) OF THE ACT
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY 2
Vikas Denia
236/15
B.Com LL.B. (Hons.)
Section-D
Group: D6
UILS ACADEMIC MOOT, 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 1
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................................................... 3
TABLE OF CASES ............................................................................................................................................. 4
STATEMENT OF FACTS................................................................................................................................... 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................................................... 6
ISSUES .................................................................................................................................................................. 7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ......................................................................................................................... 8
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................................................. 9
1. THAT THE COMPLAINANT IS NOT A CONSUMER AND OP2 IS NOT A SERVICE

PROVIDER IN THE PRESENT MATTER ........................................................................................ 9
1.1 THAT THE COMPLAINANT IS NOT THE CONSUMER IN THE PRESENT
CASE……………………………………………………….……………………………………....9
1.2 THAT THE OP2 IS NOT THE SERVICE PROVIDER IN THE PRESENT
CASE……………………………………………………………………………..............................9
2. THAT OP2 IS NOT LIABLE TO REFUND ANY SUM TO THE COMPLAINANT ................. .11
3. THAT OP2 IS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE ...................................... 13
3.1 NO FALSE OR MISLEADING REPRESENTATION MADE TO
COMPLAINANT……………………………………………...……………………………….....13
3.2 COMPLAINANT DIDN’T OPT FOR CANCELLATION OF POLICY WITHIN THE
FREE LOOK PERIOD, SO NO UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE ON THE PART OF
BANK...............................................................................................................................................15
PRAYER ............................................................................................................................................................. 17
1
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTY 2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Bank- MGRT Bank
Insurance Company- NEMA Insurance Company
Hon’ble – Honourable
AIR- All India Record
SC- Supreme Court
CC- Consumer Court/forum
Ltd.- Limited
SCC- Selected Cases in Chancery
Act, 1986- Consumer Protection Act, 1986
OP2- Opposite Party 2
2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Statutes
 Consumer Protection Act,1986
 Consumer Protection Rules, 1987
 Indian Contract Act, 1872
Books
 AVTAR SINGH, CONTRACT AND SPECIFIC RELIEF 4 (10th ed. 2008)

 RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, THE LAW OF TORTS 244 (G.P. Singh eds.,
26th ed. 2013)
Websites
 http://www.manupatra.com
 http://confonet.nic.in
 http://indiankanoon.org
Articles
 Article on Privity of Contract by Legal Services India.
 Article on Unfair Trade Practice and Restrictive Trade Practice by Law Times
Journal dated November 19, 2018.
 Article on Free Look Period by Investopedia updated on August 19, 2019.
3
TABLE OF CASES
Anupama Bhatoria vs. HDFC Bank CC/13/812. ..................................................................... 16
Banbury v. Bank of Montreal, (1918) AC 626. ...................................................................... 14
Bharti Anu Eshwar vs ICICI Bank CC/13/2739. ..................................................................... 12
Consumer Education and Research Society v. M/s Vasu Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd (1992) CPJ
508 (NC)............................................................................................................................... 14
Grasim Industries Ltd and others vs M/s Agarwal Steel CA 5994/2004(SC) .......................... 11
L. Shiv Dayal Kapoor and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) AIR 1963 P&H 538. .................... 11
Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. M.R.T.P. Commission AIR 1989 SC 1692 (1695) ...................... 14
Mohan Lal Benal Vs ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd Revsion Petition No.2870 of
2012. ..................................................................................................................................... 16
OIC vs Munimahesh Patel (2006) 7 SCC 655. ........................................................................ 16
Vimal Chandra Grover vs. Bank of India AIR 2000 SC 2181. ................................................ 10
Welldone Estate Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd 178 (2011)
DLT 118. .............................................................................................................................. 11
4
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A had a bank account in the Bank since December, 2003. He was well satisfied with the
services rendered by the bank in the past. For the benefit of “A”, the investor advisor of the
bank suggested him an investment in an annual investment scheme which would give him
guaranteed handsome dividends apart from the maturity amount. On 1.5.2011, A signed
papers of investment after reading them and forwarded the initial deposit of Rs. 35, 0000/- to
bank for investing the same in annual investment scheme. After receiving the documents
pertaining to investment “A” visited the bank and contended that the investment is made in
the insurance policy and as per the policy he need to deposit annually Rs. 35, 0000/- for the
next 20 years. On this bank again reminded of the benefits he will make annually by
investing in the scheme and then also made no concealment of the materials facts of the
policy. Now being well informed about the policy he deposited amount in the policy till 2017
without doing any act to show resistance. Due to personal reasons, in 2017, when “A” was in
need of money; he visited bank for the discontinuance of the policy. The manager of the bank
informed him that they were not having any link with the insurance company as they had
merely forwarded his (A’s) request for investment to the insurance company. Now when the
insurance company has denied his request for refund of the whole amount deposited, he is
suing bank for unfair trade practice. Hence, this written submission on behalf of the Opposite
Party 2 i.e. Bank.
5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Complainant, Mr. A has filed a complaint before the Hon’ble District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission under Section 11 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The Complainant approached the forum alleging unfair trade practice by Bank as defined
under 2(1)(r) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The opposite party humbly submits to the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum and shall
accept any judgement of this Forum as final and binding and shall execute them in
entirety and in good faith.
Note: The necessary fee of ₹ 200 as mandated by the Section 9A of the Consumer
Protection Rules, 1987 in the form of crossed Demand Draft drawn on the State Bank
of India in favor of the Registrar of the State Commission has been submitted.
6
ISSUES
1. Whether or not complainant is a consumer and OP2, a service provider in the present
matter?
2. Whether or not OP2 is liable to refund the sum along with interest to the complainant?
3. Whether or not OP2 is liable for Unfair Trade Practices as alleged by the
complainant?
7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. THAT COMPLAINANT IS NOT CONSUMER AND OP2 IS NOT A SERVICE

PROVIDER IN THE PRESENT MATTER
That the complainant is not a consumer and the OP2 is not a service provider because of
lack of consideration in the act that took place between the complainant and OP2.
2. THAT THE OP2 IS NOT LIABLE TO REFUND ANY SUM TO THE

COMPLAINANT
That OP2 is not liable to pay any sums to the complainant due to the application of
Privity of Contracts following which stranger to a contract cannot sue and cannot be sued.
3. THAT OP2 IS NOT LIABLE FOR UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE.
That OP2 is not liable for Unfair Trade Practices as the suggestion given by OP2 was a
fair and reasonable suggestion and OP2 didn’t misrepresent or conceal any fact from the
Complainant. The complainant shall be deemed to have knowledge of all the facts and
terms of the Insurance contract owing to his own wilful neglect in reading the same when
the copy was delivered to him.
8
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. THAT THE COMPLAINANT IS NOT A CONSUMER AND OP2 IS NOT A

SERVICE PROVIDER IN THE PRESENT MATTER
1. It is humbly submitted that the complainant is not the consumer and OP2 is not the
service provider to the Complainant in the present case.
1.1.THAT THE COMPLAINANT IS NOT THE CONSUMER IN THE
PRESENT MATTER.
2. Section 2(1)(d)1 of the Act, 1986 defines consumer. However, the complainant is not
the consumer to OP2 as he didn’t pay any consideration nor promised nor partly paid
and partly promised, nor under any system of deferred payment. The advice was in
the form of a mere suggestion by the Investment Advisor of OP2 and hence, didn’t
qualify to be a service so as to render the complainant the status of consumer.
1.2. THAT THE OP2 IS NOT THE SERVICE PROVIDER IN THE PRESENT
CASE.
3. Banking is the business dealing with money and created transactions. The definition
of Banking in Section 5(1) (b) of The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 makes it clear
that (a) accepting of deposit and, (b) lending or investing them are the essential
functions of a banking company. A business will not be called a banking business if
the purpose of accepting deposit is not to lend or invest.
4. As referred above, Section 2(1)(d) provides that an act qualifies to be a service only if
it in exchange of a consideration. Investor Banker of the bank had merely suggested
the annual investment scheme to complainant and decision was left with him whether
1
consumer" means any person who—
(i)………..
(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 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised,
or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are
availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of
such services for any commercial purposes;
9
to invest or not? So, there was no compulsion on the complainant. Moreover the
suggestion was made with motive that customer can earn handsome dividends from
the suggestion of the bank.
5. Also, in Vimal Chandra Grover vs. Bank of India,2 it was argued before the Supreme
court on behalf of the bank that the appellant, who took overdraft facility from the
bank by pleading shares, is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer
Protection Act. The Supreme Court repelled the arguments of the bank and held that
bank is rendering service by providing overdraft facilities to a consumer, which is not
without consideration. Bank is charging interest and other charges as well in
providing the case,
6. However, in the present matter, the advice can’t be held to be a service by the OP2 as
it was a mere suggestion which was uncharged by the OP2. The OP2 only received
Rs. 35,0000/- from the Complainant which was directly invested on behalf of the
Complainant itself in the insurance policy which was later ratified by the complainant
on 05.05.2011.
7. Hence, in the light of the facts and circumstances enumerated above, it is humbly
prayed that the complaint against OP2 be dismissed for want of Locus Standi and on
ground of non-qualification of the complainant as a consumer.
2
AIR 2000 SC 2181.
10
2. THAT OP2 IS NOT LIABLE TO REFUND ANY SUM TO THE

COMPLAINANT
8. It is humbly submitted that OP2 is not liable to refund any sum to the complainant as
the amount was deposited with the OP1 with the consent of the Complainant.
9. Also, OP2 was merely an agent of OP1 when he was promoting the policy of OP1. In
such a case, OP2 can’t be liable for any damage arising out of any act of OP1 as it
was merely a facilitator of contract between the complainant and OP1.
10. It is humbly submitted that the doctrine of Privity of contract will apply and in such a
case the Third Party, OP2 in the present case, can’t sue or be sued in a contract
between the complainant and OP1.
11. The doctrine of Privity in the common law of contract provides that a contract cannot
confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the
parties to it3. The doctrine of Privity, while in principle, at least it prevents a third
party beneficiary from suing on a contract, operates with equal logic to forbid the
contracting parties to enforce obligations against a stranger. It has long been an axiom
of the common law that a contract between A and B cannot impose a liability upon
C.4 The rule of Privity of contract is that no one but the parties to a contract can be
bound by it or entitled finder it5.
12. Hence, in the light of the above case laws, OP2 is protected from being sued in the
present matter by the doctrine of ‘Privity of Contract’ as the insurance contract was a
contract between the complainant and OP1 and OP2 is a stranger to the same.
13. It is humbly submitted that complainant had himself signed the investment paper on
01.05.2011. Another opportunity was available with the complainant when insurance
policy papers were delivered to him. He could have read the terms and conditions of
insurance policy. OP2 took reference from “Grasim Industries Ltd and others vs M/s
Agarwal Steel 6, where it was laid down that “when a person signs a document, there
is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the
3
Welldone Estate Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 178 (2011) DLT 118.
4
Cheshire, Fifoot & Furmston, The Law of Contract ( 13 th ed. Butterworth Legal Publishers 1996 ).
5
L. Shiv Dayal Kapoor and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI), New Delhi and Anr., AIR 1963 P&H 538.
6
CA 5994/2004(SC).
11
document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures
thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted.
Relying on the judgment given in Bharti Anu Eshwar vs ICICI Bank7 , wherein the
Hon’ble forum has held that “All these headnotes clearly show that the Complainant
while putting her signatures thereon definitely might have seen all these or any of
these head notes.. When documentary evidence speak about the application of mind to
apply for insurance policy the Complainant cannot otherwise contend. Hence no case
is made out against the Opposite party no.1”.
14. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Bench that the complainant has failed to
prove how the bank is liable to refund deposited money as no one induced or compel
him to sign on the document of the insurance policy. He has signed the papers after
fully satisfying himself about the investment scheme. Bank was merely promoting
third party product to its customer which is authorised by the RBI. The act of the bank
in suggesting the investment scheme was just to nourish its relation with its customer.
15. Therefore, it is humbly prayed before the Hon’ble Bench that OP2 is not liable to pay
any sum to the complainant.
7
Complaint Case No. CC/13/2739.
12
3. THAT OP2 IS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE
3.1 NO FALSE OR MISLEADING REPRESENTATION MADE TO

COMPLAINANT
16. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Bench that OP2 is not liable for any Unfair
Trade Practice. The term Unfair Trade Practice has been defined in Section 2(1)(r) of
the Act, 1986. The only relevant provisions are reproduced as under:
“S.2(1)(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 service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice
including any of the following practices, namely:-
(1) The practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible
representation which, -
……………….
(ii) Falsely represents that the goods or service have sponsorship, approval,
performance, characteristic, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods or
services do not have;
……………...
(vi) Makes a false or misleading representation concerning the need for, or the
usefulness of, any good services;
……………….”
17. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Bench that OP2 is not liable under any of
the above-mentioned provisions in so far as the suggestion of the Investment Advisor
to the complainant is concerned.
18. In the present matter, the Investment Advisor of OP2 gave a fair suggestion to the
complainant to invest in the OP1’s Insurance Policy which was in his reasonable,
prudent opinion a lucrative investment. Even when the complainant re-approached the
OP2 on 05.05.2011 with a grievance that he was never informed that investment is
made in an insurance policy and he does not intend to invest annually Rs. 35,000/- for
next 20 years. The manager of OP2 assured “A” that it is lucrative investment, where
apart from getting annual benefits he would get a handsome amount at the maturity of
13
the policy. On being satisfied and informed, he continued to make the annual
investment till 2017, which is a clear indication of the Complainant’s own free
consent in the investment being made by him.
19. When the question of interpretation of the term ‘unfair trade practice’ arises, it must
be remembered that the object of the provision is to bring honesty and truth in the
relationship between the manufacturer and the consumer. When a problem arises as to
whether a particular act can be condemned as an ‘unfair trade practice’ or not, the key
to the solution would be to examine whether it contains a false statement and is
misleading and further what is the effect of such a representation made by the
manufacturer on the common man? Does it lead a reasonable person in the position
of a buyer to a wrong conclusion? The issue cannot be resolved merely by examining
whether the representation is correct or incorrect in the literal sense. A statement,
which may be inaccurate in the technical literal sense can convey the truth and
sometimes more effectively than a literally correct statement. It is, therefore,
necessary to examine whether the representation, complained of, contains the element
of misleading the buyer. Does a reasonable man on reading the advertisement form a
belief different from what the truth is? The position will have to be viewed with
objectivity in an impersonal manner. It is stated in Halsbury’s Law of England, 4th
Edition, paras 1044 and 1045 that a representation will be deemed to be false if it
false in substance and in fact; and the test by which the representation is to be
judged is to see whether the discrepancy between the fact as represented and the
actual fact is such as would be considered material by a reasonable representee.
Another way of stating the rule is to say that substantial falsity is, on the one hand,
necessary, and on the other hand, adequate to establish a misrepresentation and that
where the entire representation is a faithful picture of transcript of the essential facts,
no falsity is established, even though there may have been any number of inaccuracies
in unimportant details8. The general principle is that if a banker undertakes to advise
he must exercise reasonable skill care and skill in giving advice.9
20. In the present matter, if the same test is applied, it is prima facie apparent that the
facts disclosed by the OP2 are material and reasonable and equally profitable for the
complainant. Also, OP2 clearly mentioned it to the complainant that “it is lucrative
8
Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. M.R.T.P. Commission, AIR 1989 SC 1692 (1695); also referred in Consumer
Education and Research Society v. M/s Vasu Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., II (1992) CPJ 508 (NC).
9
Banbury v. Bank of Montreal, (1918) AC 626.
14
investment, where apart from getting annual benefits he would get a handsome
amount at the maturity of the policy.” The complainant is getting annual returns on
the investment and the same is not disputed by the complainant.
21. It is further humbly submitted that OP2 didn’t make any false or misleading
representation to the complainant. As for the fact, that an early withdrawal would
fetch only 50% of the deposited amount, the OP2 can’t be held liable as the insurance
contract is a separate contract between the Complainant and OP1. Also, the
complainant will be deemed to have knowledge of all the terms of the investment as
he was delivered a copy of the insurance policy on 05.05.2011. In the words of
EDGAR
“Knowledge” means, with respect to an individual, such individual actually knows or
should have known of the particular fact, matter, circumstance or other item”.
22. Hence, Knowledge also includes constructive knowledge which is defined in Black’s
Law Dictionary as “knowledge that only using reasonable care or diligence should
have, and therefore that is attributed by law to a given person”. Constructive
knowledge is inferred where a person has means of knowing a fact but has omitted to
know it. In the present case, the delivery of Insurance contract papers afforded a
opportunity to the complainant to know the terms of the contract, which he due to his
wilful neglect, failed to know. Hence, in any dispute, arising due to the lack of
knowledge of terms of contract due to the wilful neglect of the complainant, the OP2
can’t be held liable.
3.2 COMPLAINANT DIDN’T OPT FOR CANCELLATION OF POLICY

WITHIN THE FREE LOOK PERIOD, SO NO UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE
ON THE PART OF BANK
23. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Bench that every insurance policy has
clause: “Cancellation of policy in Free Look period” wherein the investor/insured
are given reasonable period usually ranging from 15-30 days to cancel the policy after
receiving the policy with all the documents if terms of the policy are not acceptable,
but complainant did not opt Free Look Period option and deposited the amount
annually for a long period of 7 years. There was no unfair trade practice on the part of
the bank as the policy document reached the complainant within 4 days and he has
sufficient time to get the policy cancelled if he didn’t intend to invest in it. For this,
15
OP2 took reference from OIC vs Munimahesh Patel10, where it was laid down law
that” availing free look period was open to complainant and not opting for
cancellation of policy, complainant/appellant cannot demand refund of premium
amount as deficiency in services”. Hence it is prayed that this complaint may be
dismissed.
In Anupama Bhatoria vs. HDFC Bank11 it was held by the Hon’ble forum that,
“scrutinizing all the facts and evidences submitted before us, it is clear that
complainant have not availed option of Free Look Period of 30 days in given all three
policies.. The complainant has unable to prove allegations of deficiency in services
and unfair trade practice of OP1 and OP2. Hence, we are of the opinion that this
complaint has no merit and deserves to be dismissed so dismissed without any cost”.
24. It is humbly submitted that, the reasonable opportunity was available with the
complainant to cancel the policy within free look period when he received the
insurance policy, but then also he didn’t exercised his right. He paid for the long 7
years without doing any act showing resistance. It is only when he requires money he
is suing the bank for unfair trade practice. So, the complainant has not come to this
Hon’ble forum with clean hands. The OP2 relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble
NCDRC in Mohan Lal Benal Vs ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.12 which the
Hon’ble NCDRC clearly held that if the insured/complainant is not satisfied with the
policy taken, he should avail the option of returning the same within 15 days of its
receipts i.e. within the “Free Look Period”. Hence Opposite Party 2 can’t be held
liable as complainant has failed to exercise his right within the prescribed time.
10
(2006) 7SCC 655.
11
Complaint Case No. CC/13/812.
12
REVISION PETITION NO. 2870 OF 2012.
16
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of facts of the case, arguments advanced and authorities citied, it is
most humbly prayed before the Hon’ble Bench that it may be pleased to hold, adjudge and
declare-
 The Opposite Party 2 be discharged from the complaint for want of Locus
Standi of the complainant against the Opposite Party 2 and due to the
application of Doctrine of Privity of Contract.
Or in the alternative-
 That the Opposite Party 2 is neither liable to pay any sum to the complainant
nor for any Unfair Trade Practice.
And/or any other relief that this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to grant in the
interest of justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
And in the premises the Opposite Party 2 as duty bound shall forever pray.
Sd/-
Counsel on Behalf of Opposite Party 2
17

Before The Hon'Ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum COMPLAINT No. - OF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Before The Hon'Ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum COMPLAINT No. - OF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GROUP: D6

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. NEMA Insurance Company

COMPLAINT RECEIVED UNDER SECTION 11 OF THECONSUMER

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY 2

B.Com LL.B. (Hons.)

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 2

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

TABLE OF CASES ............................................................................................................................................. 4

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

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

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

1. THAT THE COMPLAINANT IS NOT A CONSUMER AND OP2 IS NOT A SERVICE

Bank- MGRT Bank

Insurance Company- NEMA Insurance Company

AIR- All India Record

SC- Supreme Court

CC- Consumer Court/forum

SCC- Selected Cases in Chancery

Act, 1986- Consumer Protection Act, 1986

OP2- Opposite Party 2

 Consumer Protection Rules, 1987

 Indian Contract Act, 1872

 AVTAR SINGH, CONTRACT AND SPECIFIC RELIEF 4 (10th ed. 2008)

 Article on Privity of Contract by Legal Services India.

 Article on Free Look Period by Investopedia updated on August 19, 2019.

Anupama Bhatoria vs. HDFC Bank CC/13/812. ..................................................................... 16

Banbury v. Bank of Montreal, (1918) AC 626. ...................................................................... 14

Bharti Anu Eshwar vs ICICI Bank CC/13/2739. ..................................................................... 12

OIC vs Munimahesh Patel (2006) 7 SCC 655. ........................................................................ 16

1. THAT COMPLAINANT IS NOT CONSUMER AND OP2 IS NOT A SERVICE

2. THAT THE OP2 IS NOT LIABLE TO REFUND ANY SUM TO THE

3. THAT OP2 IS NOT LIABLE FOR UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. THAT THE COMPLAINANT IS NOT A CONSUMER AND OP2 IS NOT A

2. THAT OP2 IS NOT LIABLE TO REFUND ANY SUM TO THE

3. THAT OP2 IS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE

3.1 NO FALSE OR MISLEADING REPRESENTATION MADE TO

3.2 COMPLAINANT DIDN’T OPT FOR CANCELLATION OF POLICY

Counsel on Behalf of Opposite Party 2

You might also like