Name of faculty member – Dr.

Priya Submitted by- Rishav Chaudhary

Course Code: POL123 Course Title: Business Law

Academic Task no: 2 Academic Task Title: Assignment 2

Student Roll No: RQ2002A33 Student Registration No: 12019498

Term: 4 Section: Q2002

Date of Allotment: Date of Submission: 12th Feb, 2022

Maximum Marks: Marks Obtained:

Learning Outcomes: Practical Exposure to Laws

Declaration: I declare that this Assignment is my individual work. I have not copied it from any other
students’ work or from any other source except where due acknowledgment is made explicitly in the
text, nor has any part been written for me by any other person.
Student’ Signature:

General Observations Suggestions for Improvement Best part of assignment

Evaluator’s Comments (For Instructor’s use only):

Evaluator’s Signature and Date:

Consumer Protection Act

Case – 1
Mr. Punit Jain, the Complainant, filed a consumer complaint against Ireo Grace
Realtech Pvt. Ltd. for making him sign a one-sided agreement concerning the sale of a
1483.28 sq. ft. apartment at 9200/ – per sq. ft. instead of the previously agreed rate of
8750/ – per sq. ft on 16.03.2017. The company also agreed to make the apartment
available to the Complainant within 42 months of execution of the agreement
03.04.2018. The Agreement also mentioned a 180 days’ grace period. The
Complainant made full payment of the agreed amount of 1,55,17,716/ – Rupees
before filing the present complaint against the builder when it failed to complete the
construction within the stipulated time period.
The Counsel for the builder contended that the Complainant would not be considered
as a ‘Consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d), as he had bought the apartment for a
commercial purpose and had also made a similar booking in another project by the
builder. It was also argued that there was an arbitration clause in the agreement signed
by the complainant. The builder’s counsel further contended that the Complainant was
bound by the terms of the agreement on the Basic Sale Price.

Analysis of the case

In this case, the complainant Mr. Putin Jain filed a consumer complaint case against
Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Putin said that he was made signed a one-sided
agreement. He was sold 1483.28 sq. ft. apartment at 9200/ - per sq. ft. instead of the
previous agreed rate that is 8750/ - per sq. ft. And also, the company agreed to
complete the apartment within 42 months after the execution of the agreement along
with that, 180 days were also provided as grace period. Company failed to complete
the apartment within the stipulated time. From the side of the company, it was stated
that the case cannot be considered as consumer protection right because Mr. Putin
bought the apartment for commercial purpose and also, he had made a similar booking
in another project by the same builder. And further regarding the price, company said
that the complainant was bound by the terms of the agreement on the basic sale price.

Issues and the facts

Issue in this case is :-

• Apartment was not completed within the stipulated time.
• Mr. Putin was made to sign a one-sided agreement.
• Apartment was sold to Mr. Putin at higher price.
 Conclusion

The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum held that the present agreement was a one-
sided agreement and was an unfair contract. It was stated that the Developer could not
compel the apartment buyers to be bound by the one-sided contractual terms contained
in the Buyer’s Agreement. The court also directed the builder to pay interest @ 9%
S.I. per annum from 27.11.2018 till the date of payment of the entire amount. The
court also directed interest @ 12% S.I. p.a. should be paid in case of a default.

Case – 2

The Appellant, Khatema Fibres Ltd., took out a “Standard Fire and Social Perils”
insurance policy from Respondent-Insurance Company New Assurance Co. Ltd. for a
sum of approx. 42 crores from 7/5/2017 to 6/5/2018, but a fire broke out on its factory
premises on 15/11/2017. The firm, M/s Adarsh Associates, appointed by the
Respondent ascertained the value of loss as approx. 2 crores upon their investigation.
The Appellants felt the assessment of was loss was approx. 13 crores, but the
Insurance Company stated that it could give a maximum claim only up to the amount
quoted by the firm.
The Appellant filed a consumer complaint under Section 21 (a)(i) of the CPA, before
the NCDRC seeking various types of compensation from the insurance company, for
loss caused due to fire, financial stress, legal fees, and so on. The Commission
allowed payment to the Appellant for 2 crores, which was original amount assessed by
Respondents. The Appellant contended that the net weight of the damaged material
was not correct. The Respondents made the counter-argument that the surveyor was
an expert at his field and did the assessment in a scientific manner.

Analysis
In this case, Khatema Fibres Ltd., took a “Standard Fire and Social Perils” insurance
policy from the insurance company “New Insurance Co. Ltd. of an amount of 42
crores from 7/5/2017 to 6/5/2018. Unfortunately, fire broke out on Khatema Fibre
factory on 15/11/2017. A firm M/s Adarsh Associates was appointed by the insurance
company to calculate the value of loss amount, after the investigation M/s Adarsh
Associates said that the loss was approx. 2 crores. But the Khatema Fibre felt the
assessment of was loss was approx. 13 crores. However, the Insurance Company
stated that it could give a maximum claim only up to the amount quoted by the M/s
Adarsh Associates.
Being unsatisfied Khatema Fibres filed a consumer case seeking various types of
compensation from the insurance company, for loss caused due to fire, financial
stress, legal fees, and so on. The Commission allowed payment to the Khatema Fibres
for 2 crores, which was original amount assessed by Insurance company. The
Khatema Fibres contended that the net weight of the damaged material was not
correct. The Respondents made the counter-argument that the surveyor was an expert
at his field and did the assessment in a scientific manner.

Issues and the facts

Issue in this case is, Khatema fibre wants that the insurance company should pay them
13 crores instead of 2 crores. And also, Khatema Fibre contended that the net weight
of the damaged material was not correct.

Conclusion

The Court observed that there were many discrepancies found by the surveyor with
respect to documents submitted, wherein one document showed a certain amount of
waste paper stock, and the other showed a huge increase in the stock. The Court
agreed with the finding that the Khatema Fibre was not able to establish deficiency in
service under Section 2(1)(g). Thus, the Court held the judgement that there was no
arbitrariness or unjustness exercised by the Insurance company in granting claim to
the extent of 2 crores.
Conditions and Warranties

Case – 1

In a complaint, the complainant-appellant has mentioned that after purchase of one Kent
Ground Plus RO Water Purifier System, this water purifier system became defective within
15 days of its installation and for which he complained to the respondents, but they did not
hear the appellant and it was only on 30.05.2014 the respondents’ changed filters and
rectified the defects in the water purifier system and charged Rs. 1,000/- from the appellant.
The appellant did not mention in the complaint that he complained to the respondents
verbally or in writing. There is no such evidence on record to show that water purifier
system became defective within 15 days from its purchase and appellant had informed the
respondents regarding defects and for rectification and removal of defects in the system.
There is also no evidence on record to show that children of the appellant consumed impure
and contaminated water due to defect in the water purifier system and became sick and for
that purpose, the appellant spent Rs. 1.00lac on their treatment. We have gone through the
warranty card and terms and conditions of warranty (paper Nos. 20 to 21) filed by the
appellant and also original warranty card as well as terms and conditions of warranty of
product Kent Ground Plus RO Water Purifier System. Condition No. 1 of terms and
conditions of warranty mentioned in the warranty card is reproduced as under :-

"1. The Warranty period commences from the date of purchase by the first end user. During
this Warranty period of one year, KENT or its Authorised Service Provider (ASP) will
replace or repair any part of the KENT water purifier, that in the opinion of KENT or its
ASP, would be defective in operation due to faulty material or workmanship (i.e.,
manufacturing defects) with the exception of consumables such as Sediment Filter, Carbon
Filter and RO/UF Membrane. However, if the RO/UF Membrane gets clogged within one
year, it shall be cleaned / repaired / replaced at no extra charge."

Analysis

The above noted condition of terms and conditions of warranty is most relevant in the
present matter. From the perusal of condition No. 1, it is evident that there was a
warranty for period of one year, if in the opinion of KENT or its ASP would be
defective in operation due to faulty material or workmanship, but this condition of
warranty is with the exceptions of consumable items such as Sediment Filter, Carbon
Filter and RO/UF Membrane. In this condition, it is also mentioned that however if
the RO/UF gets clogged within one year, which shall be cleaned/repaired/replaced at
no extra charge. Therefore, from the perusal of condition No.1 of terms and
conditions, the warranty of Kent Ground Plus RO Water Purifier System was for one
year in case of any manufacturing defect or faulty material or workmanship. There is
exception for consumable items such as Sediment Filter, Carbon Filter and RO/UF
Membrane. Admittedly, the respondents attended the complaint of the appellant on
30.05.2014 and changed Sediment Filter and Carbon Filter of RO water purifier and
charged Rs. 1,000/- from the appellant. From 24.10.2013, i.e., date of purchase of
Kent Ground Plus RO Water Purifier System, the respondents attended and rectified
defects of this system after 07 months and 07 days on 30.05.2014. On this date,
respondents changed Sediment Filter and Carbon Filter in the RO water purifier
system. These filters are consumables, therefore, as per condition No. 1 of the terms
and conditions of warranty, respondents charged Rs. 500/- for Sediment Filter and Rs.
500/- for Carbon Filter, a total sum of Rs. 1,000/- from the appellant on 30.05.2014 as
shown in the estimate/cash memo (paper No. 19). In this way, respondents have not
committed any deficiency in service. On the other side, the respondents have filed
document (paper No. 28) which is an estimate/cash memo dated 26.04.2014 which
shows that respondents have changed Flote Valve and Micro Switch in the RO water
purifier system free of cost, as it was under warranty period. Similarly, respondents
have filed one more document (paper No. 30), which is an estimate/cash memo dated
30.05.2014 which also reveals that the respondents have changed RO membrane free
of cost, as it was under warranty period. The appellant has concealed this fact of
change of Flote Valve and Micro Switch on 26.04.2014 and change of RO membrane
on 30.05.2014 free of cost by the respondents. The fact that the respondents changed
the Flote Valve and Micro Switch was never challenged/controverted by the appellant
by filing any replication. This proves that on 26.04.2014 there was no defect in the RO
water purifier system and except Flote Valve and Micro Switch, which were changed
by the respondents. It is only on 06.08.2014 when the appellant sent a legal notice to
the respondents after 30.05.2014 when filters were changed and being consumables,
respondents charged Rs. 1,000/-. This shows that the appellant-complainant did not
come before the District Forum with clean hands. In this way, we are of the view that
the respondents have provided free services as well as service on payment after six
months of purchase of RO water purifier system and have not committed any
deficiency in service.

Issues and the facts

Issue in this case is that, the complainant-appellant has mentioned that after purchase
of one Kent Ground Plus RO Water Purifier System, this water purifier system
became defective within 15 days of its installation and for which he complained to the
respondents. On 30.05.2014 the respondents’ changed filters and rectified the defects
in the water purifier system and charged Rs. 1,000/- from the appellant. And also, the
appellant is clamming that just because of the defective water purifier his children got
sick and he spent 1.00 lac on them. There is no such evidence on record to show that
water purifier system became defective within 15 days from its purchase and appellant
had informed the respondents regarding defects and for rectification and removal of
defects in the system. There is also no evidence on record to show that children of the
appellant consumed impure and contaminated water due to defect in the water purifier
system and became sick and for that purpose, the appellant spent Rs. 1.00lac on their
treatment.
 Conclusion

The appellant has neither pleaded not proved that there was any manufacturing defect
in the Kent Ground Plus RO Water Purifier System. No expert evidence has been filed
on record by the appellant regarding any manufacturing defect in the RO water
purifier system. The appellant has failed to prove his case before the District Forum.

Thus, we are of the view that the District Forum has properly considered the facts and
circumstances of the case and has passed a reasoned order, which does not call for any
interference and being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.