ACADEMIC YEAR: 2023-2024

SEMESTER II

“Legal Skills Internal – I”

Submitted By
Saarthak Mishra (23010324072)
Samarth Sharma (23010324076)
Saikoushik Goud Gorige (23010324106)
Kanav Bhargava (23010324120)
BBA–LLB, Division–D

Under The Guidance Of

Ms. Shruti Singh Ma’am
ABSTRACT
Ramesh, a working professional, purchased a brand-new car from a local dealership, enticed
by its advertised features and performance specifications. However, his excitement quickly
turned into frustration as he encountered recurring mechanical issues, including engine
failure, brake malfunctions, and electrical problems, shortly after driving the car off the
dealership lot. Despite numerous visits to the dealership for repairs, the issues persisted,
posing inconvenience and safety concerns for Ramesh and his family. Frustrated by the
dealership's lack of accountability, Ramesh sought legal guidance to navigate his situation.
This abstract explores Ramesh's predicament in the context of the Consumer Protection Act,
which provides a robust legal framework for addressing grievances related to defective
products and deficient services. Ramesh's experience highlights the importance of upholding
consumer rights and holding manufacturers and sellers accountable for providing products
that meet established standards of quality and performance. Through legal avenues such as
breach of implied warranty, consumer protection laws, and potential claims under lemon
laws, Ramesh seeks redress for the issues he faced with his car. The abstract underscores the
significance of consumer advocacy and effective legal recourse mechanisms in safeguarding
consumer interests in the marketplace.

CLIENT COUNSELLING SESSION

Counsellor: Ramesh, greetings! I extend my appreciation for allocating your time to
rendezvous with me today. The grapevine suggests that your recently acquired vehicle from
the establishment you favored has been causing you distress. Could you shed further light on
this matter?

Ramesh: Certainly. I recently acquired a brand-new automobile from a dealer, and ever
since, I've been encountering recurring mechanical issues shortly after driving it away. To
expound, the engine, electrical system, and brakes have all experienced malfunctions, posing
a significant safety concern for my family.

Counsellor: Oh dear, that sounds vexing. Have you attempted to have the vehicle serviced at
the garage?

Ramesh: Indeed, I've made multiple visits for repairs. However, the problems persist despite
their attempts to address them. Frankly, it's quite inconvenient, as I am anxious about the
safety implications of using this car.

Counsellor: Understandably so. In that case, let us explore your concerns within the legal
realm, particularly as a consumer. Individuals who make purchases are entitled to certain
rights, including those pertaining to automobiles. You possess the right to file a complaint
against the dealership for selling defective products that fail to meet the agreed-upon
standards at the time of purchase.

Ramesh: That revelation is reassuring. I harbored concerns that the dealership might evade
responsibility.

Counsellor: Furthermore, the dealership could be held accountable for violating consumer
protection laws, especially if they misrepresented the vehicle or failed to disclose known
defects. This constitutes an unjust business practice, which is prohibited by law.

Ramesh: Indeed, I noticed disparities between their advertisements and the actual product
experience. It's comforting to know that they can be held liable for this.

Counsellor: Exactly. Additionally, regarding the ongoing mechanical issues, pursuant to

warranty terms or consumer protection regulations, the dealership is obligated to address
them to remedy such deficiencies. If they fail to do so despite repeated repair attempts, we
may need to consider further legal action to safeguard your rights.

Ramesh: Agreed; your perspective is insightful. I appreciate seeking legal counsel. What
steps should we take next?

Counsellor: Initially, we will gather all relevant documentation, including your purchase
agreement, repair records, and communications with the dealership. Subsequently, we will
assess the strength of your case and determine the most prudent course of action, whether it
involves negotiating a resolution with the dealership or pursuing litigation if necessary.

Ramesh: I genuinely appreciate your advocacy on my behalf. Knowing that there's someone
fighting for my rights brings me comfort.

Counsellor: Indeed, Ramesh. We are committed to assisting you throughout this process.
Let's collaborate to ensure your rights are upheld, and a satisfactory resolution is achieved.
Issue raised –
(1) Can Mr. Ramesh, as a consumer, pursue a complaint against the dealership for the
recurring mechanical issues with the recently purchased car, and is there a legal avenue for
him to file a suit against the dealership?
(2) Do the actions of the dealership constitute a breach of consumer protection laws through
the sale of a defective product?
(3) Is the dealership accountable for unfair trade practices due to misleading advertisements
about the car's features and performance or by failing to disclose known defects, potentially
violating consumer protection laws?
(4) Does the dealership bear legal responsibility for rectifying the recurring automobile
problems, and has it discharged this obligation satisfactorily within the confines of the law?

Rule-
(1) Consumer Protection Act 2019 1- An Act to provide for the protection of the interests of
consumers and, for the said purpose, to establish authorities for timely and effective
administration and settlement of consumers' disputes and for matters connected therewith
or incidental thereto
(2) THE SALE OF GOODS ACT, 19302- An Act to define and amend the law relating to the sale of
goods. WHEREAS it is expedient to define and amend the law relating to the sale of goods

Analysis-
(1) Can Mr. Ramesh be considered as a consumer and pursue a complaint against the
dealership for the recurring mechanical issues with the recently purchased car, and is
there a legal avenue for him to file a suit against the dealership?

“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
Mr. Ramesh, as a consumer, possesses the right to file a complaint against the dealership for
the defective car, unfair trade practices, product liability, and hazards to health, thereby
establishing himself as the complainant. The definition of consumer, as per the precedent set
in Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute, excludes purposes of commercial
resale. Mr. Ramesh's usage of the vehicle solely for commuting to work aligns with this
definition, thus excluding him from the category of commercial purposes.
Furthermore, Mr. Ramesh's family members, who experienced the distressing accident, are
also deemed consumers under Canara Bank v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.,
1
Consumer protection Act ,2019
2
The Sale Of Goods Act,1930
wherein the judiciary broadened the definition of consumers to encompass beneficiaries of
services, ensuring their rights are safeguarded and underscoring accountability beyond
contractual agreements.
In considering whether a suit can be filed against the dealership, Section 2(37) delineates
"product seller" to encompass distributors, encapsulating dealerships within this definition
and making them subject to legal action.
Moreover, in Tata Motors Ltd v. Antonio Paula Vaz & Anr, the Supreme Court clarified that
dealerships assume liability as principal-to-principal entities, thereby emphasizing their
accountability over manufacturers. Consequently, the dealership, acting as a distributor,
would be the appropriate entity against which a suit can be filed.

(2) Do the actions of the dealership constitute a breach of consumer protection laws
through the sale of a defective product?
The dealership's sale of the car in question raises concerns regarding potential violations of
consumer protection laws. Firstly, under Sections 2(9)1 of the Consumer Protection Act,
consumers possess rights, including safety and quality assurances, alongside protection from
hazardous goods. The defects present in the car, such as engine failure, brake malfunctions,
and electrical issues, not only render it defective but also pose risks to life and property,
thereby potentially violating this right.
Secondly, the right to information, outlined within the Consumer Protection Act, requires
consumers to be adequately informed about the quality, quantity, and other pertinent aspects
of goods or services. Failure by the dealership to disclose these defects constitutes a breach of
this right and may be deemed an unfair trade practice.
According to section 2(10) of Consumer Protection Act,“defect” means any fault,
imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is
required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or 2 [under any
contract, express or implied, or] as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in
relation to any goods
Furthermore, the car's defects, causing harm to Mr Ramesh and his family, qualify as harm
under the Consumer Protection Act, Section 2(22), and meet the criteria for product liability
as per Section 2(34). This entitles Mr Ramesh to pursue compensation through a product
liability action, as exemplified in cases like Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company, where
damages were awarded for harm resulting from defective products.
In the case of M/S Shukla Automobiles v. Mahendra Dhurgude, Mahendra lodged a
complaint against the dealership and Force Motors Limited, seeking a replacement or refund
for a defective Force One motor vehicle. Despite expert confirmation of defects and no effort
from the dealership to rectify them, the commission upheld the order for replacement or
refund. This underscores the dealership's responsibility to provide defect-free vehicles and
consumers' rights under consumer protection laws. Thus, the dealership's failure to address
the defects constitutes a breach of consumer protection laws, leading to the decision for
replacement or refund.
In conclusion, the dealership's actions may indeed constitute a breach of consumer protection
laws due to the sale of a defective product, warranting legal recourse for Mr Ramesh.
(3)Is the dealership accountable for unfair trade practices due to misleading
advertisements about the car's features and performance or by failing to disclose known
defects, potentially violating consumer protection laws?
According to Section 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act, misleading advertisements are
those that falsely describe a product or service or intentionally conceal crucial information,
constituting unfair trade practices. Furthermore, Section 2(47) defines unfair trade practices
as any method or practice adopted to promote the sale of goods or services, which is deemed
unfair or deceptive.
Under these legal provisions, dealerships may be subject to legal repercussions if their
advertisements create false expectations regarding the car's features or performance, or if they
omit significant information about known defects. The failure to accurately represent the
product's qualities could lead to consumer dissatisfaction and harm, potentially resulting in
legal action.
Furthermore, the dealership's inability to resolve recurring mechanical issues despite multiple
repair attempts may indicate a lack of adequate quality control or customer service standards.
Such ongoing issues not only inconvenience the consumer but also raise concerns about the
safety and reliability of the product, further exacerbating potential violations of consumer
protection laws.
In the case General Motors Pvt Ltd v Ashok Ramnik lal Toalt, On the basis of assurance from
agents and advertisements promising suitability for off-road adventures, the complainant
purchased the vehicle. Even after investing 14 lakhs and other accessories worth Rs 1,91,295,
the vehicle was contrary to the representations shown in the advertisements. Even after
approaching the appellant and its owner, the vehicle did not meet the advertised standards
leading to dissatisfaction and complaint

The State Commission also noted that the advertisement, mentioning the vehicle's price ex-
Delhi, had no relevance to Himachal Pradesh, further questioning its legitimacy.
As a result, the State Commission awarded compensation of ₹25,000 to the complainant and
dismissed Saluja Motors' Revision Petition.
This case underscores the dealership's accountability for unfair trade practices resulting from
misleading advertisements, highlighting the importance of truthful advertising and the
consequences of deceiving consumers, potentially violating consumer protection laws.
Drawing on legal precedents such as Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, wherein
damages were awarded for misleading advertisements, it is plausible that the dealership could
be held liable for compensating Mr Ramesh for any losses incurred due to misleading
advertising and unfair trade practices. This highlights the importance of adherence to
consumer protection laws and transparency in advertising practices within the automotive
industry.
(4) Does the dealership bear legal responsibility for rectifying the recurring automobile
problems, and has it discharged this obligation satisfactorily within the confines of the
law?
According to section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, “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;

dealerships may bear legal responsibility to rectify recurring automobile problems arising
from the sale of defective products after-sales service. It is incumbent upon them to ensure
that the products they sell meet certain standards of quality and performance as per the terms
of the purchase agreement and applicable laws.
In assessing whether the dealership has discharged this obligation satisfactorily, factors such
as the dealership's responsiveness to repair requests, the effectiveness of the repairs
performed, and the overall resolution of the issues must be considered. If the dealership has
made reasonable efforts to address the recurring problems and has taken appropriate steps to
rectify the situation, it may be deemed to have fulfilled its legal responsibility.
However, the dealership has failed to address the recurring problems adequately and has not
taken sufficient measures to rectify them; it may be found to have breached its legal
obligation to the consumer. In such cases, the consumer may have grounds to pursue legal
remedies, including seeking compensation for damages incurred as a result of the dealership's
failure to fulfil its legal responsibilities.
In the case of M/s Tata Motors v. P.K. Rajesh, the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission upheld a complaint filed by Rajesh against M/s Tata Motors and their dealer,
M/s R.F. Motors, regarding manufacturing defects in a Tata Indica vehicle. Rajesh initially
sought a refund but later amended his claim, seeking compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 and costs.
The commission found in favor of Rajesh, ruling that the dealership must pay him Rs. 10,000
along with costs and interest for the inconvenience and financial losses caused by the
defective vehicle. The commission dismissed the appeal filed by M/s Tata Motors and M/s
R.F. Motors, emphasizing the responsibility of manufacturers and dealers to ensure the
quality of the products they sell and highlighting consumer recourse under the Consumer
Protection Act.
In the case of M/S Shukla Automobiles v. Mahendra Dhurgude, Mahendra Dhurgude lodged
a complaint against M/s Shukla Automobiles and Force Motors Limited, Pune, seeking
replacement or refund for a defective Force One motor vehicle purchased from the
dealership. Dhurgude reported multiple defects in the vehicle, ranging from issues with
mileage to engine malfunctions.
Expert analysis confirmed the presence of defects in the vehicle, recommending the
replacement of various components. Despite this, the dealership failed to demonstrate any
efforts to rectify the defects or provide a replacement vehicle.
The commission underscored the responsibility of manufacturers and dealers to offer defect-
free vehicles and highlighted consumers' rights to seek redress for faulty products under
consumer protection laws. Consequently, they upheld the order for replacement or refund,
emphasising the importance of providing consumers with roadworthy and defect-free
vehicles.
In conclusion, the dealership was deemed responsible for rectifying the automobile problems,
and its failure to address the defects adequately led to the decision for replacement or refund,
thus fulfilling its legal obligation under consumer protection laws.

Conclusion
Ramesh, a dedicated working professional, had long dreamt of owning his own car. Finally,
after years of saving, he decided to take the plunge and purchase a brand-new vehicle from a
local dealership. The glossy brochures and enticing advertisements promised him a smooth
and reliable driving experience, luring him in with visions of freedom and convenience.

Filled with excitement and anticipation, Ramesh drove his new car off the dealership lot,
eager to explore the open road. However, his joy quickly turned to frustration as he
encountered one mechanical issue after another. Engine failures, brake malfunctions, and
electrical problems plagued his drives, leaving him stranded on the side of the road more
times than he could count.

Determined to make things right, Ramesh diligently returned to the dealership time and time
again, hoping that each repair would finally resolve the issues. Yet, despite their assurances
and promises, the problems persisted, causing not only inconvenience but also raising serious
safety concerns for Ramesh and his family.

Frustrated and feeling betrayed by the dealership's lack of accountability, Ramesh knew he
needed to take action. With a heavy heart and a sense of determination, he sought legal
guidance, determined to hold the dealership responsible for their negligence and the hardship
they had caused him and his loved ones.

Strengths of Ramesh's Story:

1. Ramesh's meticulous documentation of the recurring mechanical issues provides strong
evidence of the dealership's failure to deliver a reliable product.
2. His persistent efforts to seek repairs and address the problems demonstrate his commitment
to resolving the issue.
3. The safety concerns raised by the ongoing mechanical issues add weight to Ramesh's case,
highlighting the potential dangers posed by the dealership's negligence.
Weaknesses of Ramesh's Story:
1. Lack of specific details about the frequency and severity of the mechanical issues may
weaken Ramesh's argument.
2. If Ramesh did not adhere to proper maintenance procedures or sought repairs from
unauthorised sources, it could diminish the dealership's liability.
3. Any delays in seeking legal guidance or failure to provide timely notice to the dealership
about the issues may be used against Ramesh in court.
Despite the challenges he faced, Ramesh's determination to seek justice and hold the
dealership accountable for their actions remains unwavering. With the support of his legal
counsel, he embarks on a journey to seek restitution for the hardships he endured and to
ensure that others do not suffer the same fate.