B7 Complainantllknnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn moot

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/28/2019 B7 Complainantllknnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn moot

    1/17

    INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013

    BEFORE THE CHANDIGARH CONSUMER COURT

    In the matter of :

    CCAASSEENNOO....OOFF22001122

    POSITION OF PARTIES:

    Ashok Kumar........................................................................................................................................................................................................................CCOOMMPPLLAAIINNAANNTT

    VVEERRSSUUSS

    Bank Manager, IBI Bank, Chandigarh

    IBI Bank, Head office, Mumbai (Through its Chairman)..................................................................................RREESSPPOONNDDEENNTT

    MMOOSSTTRREESSPPEECCTTFFUULLLLYYSSUUBBMMIITTTTEEDD

    CCOOUUNNSSEELLFFOORRTTHHEECCOOMMPPLLAAIINNAANNTT

    CCOODDEE::

    WRITTEN SUBMISSION ONBEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

    B7

  • 7/28/2019 B7 Complainantllknnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn moot

    2/17

    INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013

    WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT Page 1

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    INDEXOFAUTHORITIES ........................................................................................ 2STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................... 4STATEMENT OF FACTS .......................................................................................... 5STATEMENTOFISSUES .......................................................................................... 6SUMMARYOFARGUMENTS ............................................................................ 7ARGUMENTSADVANCED ....................................................................................... 9

    I. WHETHER MISLEADING AND FRAUD BYMR.X AMOUNTS DEFICIENCY OF SERVICE? 9The Principle Of Utmost Good Faith : ............................................................................... 9Fraud as per Law of Torts : .............................................................................................. 10Unfair Trade Practices ..................................................................................................... 10Insurance- Contractual Obligation ................................................................................... 11

    II. WHETHERIBIBANK WAS RIGHT IN MAKING THE DEDUCTIONS WHEN THE POLICYWAS RETURNED ON THE ACCOUNT OF FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION? ....................... 12

    Free Look Clause : ........................................................................................................... 12Fraud Vitiates Everything ................................................................................................ 12

    III. WHETHER THE IBI BANK IS LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST ON THE DELAY CAUSED INREFUNDING, COMPENSATION FOR MENTAL AGONY AND LITIGATION FEE OF THE

    COMPLAINANTS? .................................................................................................................. 14Interest for Delayed Refund ............................................................................................. 14Mental Agony .................................................................................................................. 15Litigation Fee ................................................................................................................... 15

    PRAYER ..................................................................................................................... 16

  • 7/28/2019 B7 Complainantllknnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn moot

    3/17

    INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013

    WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT Page 2

    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

    BOOKS:

    Dr. Avtar Singh, Law Of Consumer Protection, 4th Edition, Eastern Book Company,Lucknow

    Dr. Durga Das Basu, The Law Of Torts, 12th Edition, 2006, Kamal Law House ,Kolkata

    Justice M.B. Shah, Landmark Judgments On Consumer Protection, 2005, UniversalLaw Publishing Co.

    Mallick, Indian Contract Act, 2nd Edition, 2008, Kamal Law House Kolkata, Mark Lunney and Ken Oliphant, Tort Law-Text And Materials, 1st Edition, 2008,

    Oxford University Press

    P.C. Markanda, The Law Of Contract, 1st Edition, Volume2, 2006, Wadhwa &Company Nagpur, India

    P.K. Majumdar, Law Of Consumer In India, 6th Edition, Volume 2, 2010, OrientPublishing Company

    Prof. K. Elumalais, Consumer Protection Act And Banking Service, 1st Edition,2008, Law Publishers Pvt. Ltd

    S.M. Suri and Pradeep Bahl, Consumer Protection Judgments, Volume I, II, III, 2012,D.L.T. Publications

    S.Malik, Commentries on The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, 2nd Edition, 2002,Law Publishers Pvt. Ltd.

    Surendra Malik and Sudeep Malik, Supreme Court ON Contract And Specific Relief,Volume 2, 2009, Eastern Book Company

  • 7/28/2019 B7 Complainantllknnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn moot

    4/17

    INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013

    WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT Page 3

    CASES:

    Derry v. Peek, (1889) 14 AC 337

    Brownlie v. Campbell, 1880), 5 App Case 925

    The United India Insurance Company v. M/s. M.K.J. Corporation, 1996, (2) CPC 310

    Kandla v. Essar Oil Ltd.

    Lazarus Estate Ltd. Vs. Beasley, (1956) 1 QB 702

    Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and Others

    CONSTITUTION:The Constitution of India, 1950

    STATUTES:

    The Consumer Protection Act, 1986

    The Indian Contract Act, 1972

    The Interest Act ,1978

    The Insurance Act,1938

    Law of Torts

    MISCELLANEOUS:

    Insurance Regulatory and Development Agency Guidelines (IRDA)

  • 7/28/2019 B7 Complainantllknnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn moot

    5/17

    INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013

    WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT Page 4

    STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

    It is most humbly submitted before this Honble Court that in pursuant to section 11

    of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a complaint shall lie to the District Consumer Forum

    when the value of goods does not exceed twenty lakhs, neither the value of the policy not the

    claim exceeds twenty lakhs. The jurisdiction of the above said forum is even territorially

    completed as for a complaint to lie in the Chandigarh District Forum according to section

    11(2)(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution

    of complaint, actually or voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office

    within the local limits of the Forum. The instance case is where IBI Bank has a branch office

    and carries on its business within the local limits of the jurisdiction. This Forum has the

    jurisdiction to decide the instant case.

    The complaint according to section 12(1)(a) shall only be filed by the consumer to

    whom such goods are sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or such a service

    provided or agreed to be provided.

    The instant matter is even maintainable before this forum as the complainants have

    approached this forum for the compensation to be paid and the amount to be refunded where

    there is a deficiency of service by the bank for which the there was a consideration for that

    service.

    It is further provided under section 12, the admissibility of a complaint to be decided

    within 21 days from the date on which the complaint was received.

    Provided under section 12 of the act where a complaint has been admitted by this

    forum, it shall not be transferred to any other court or tribunal or any other authority set up by

    or under any other law for the time being in force.

    This court has the jurisdiction under section 14(1)(c) to return to the complainant the

    price, or, as the case may be the charges paid by the complainant and under section 14(1)(d)

    to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss

    or injury suffered by the complainant due to the negligence of the opposite party.

  • 7/28/2019 B7 Complainantllknnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn moot

    6/17

    INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013

    WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT Page 5

    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    Ashok Kumar is a retired Chief Engineer and is a resident of Chandigarh. He has

    maintained a savings account with IBI Bank since 2000 and routinely invested in their

    investment schemes. On his retirement he received retiral benefits which he wished to invest

    in IBI Bank as an old age guarantee. Mr. X (Investment Manager at IBI) used to advise him

    about his investment decision. Mr. X advised Ashok to invest in a policy where he had to

    invest Rs.50,000 only once and would get at least 45% return after 10 years. He further

    advised him to disinvest from his present policy where he invested Rs.25000 for 3 years and

    an year was still left. On cancellation he received Rs.24,300 on October 7,2010 as he was

    penalised by investment fund manager. Ashok Kumar purchased the policy on October 10,

    2010 where he was made sure that Rs.50,000 had to be paid only once. Based on his

    understanding he signed the policy document.

    On receiving the policy document after a fortnight on October 22, 2010 he was

    shocked to find out that he had to deposit Rs.50,000 every year for 10 years. As per the free

    look clause the policy could be returned within 15 days of receiving the same if the investor

    was not satisfied. The refund was subject to the deductions of administrative charges and

    stock market fluctuations as the bank invests the money in private securities.

    Wasting no time he returned the policy document to the head office requesting the

    amount to be refunded without any deduction as he was cancelling the policy on the ground

    of being misled which was conveyed to the bank in his request letter on October 23, 2010.

    The same was acknowledged by the bank on October 28, 2010.

    On not getting refund for three months he sent a reminder to the bank shortly after

    which on February 3, 2011 bank refunded a sum of Rs.48,500. The refund was accompanied

    with a letter explaining deduction due to stock market fluctuations.

    Mr. Ashok Kumar in order to redress his grievance filed a case in consumer court and

    wished to punish the bank for cheating and monetary loss.

  • 7/28/2019 B7 Complainantllknnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn moot

    7/17

    INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013

    WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT Page 6

    STATEMENT OF ISSUES

    1

    Whether misleading by Mr. X amounts to fraud and thus deficiency of services.2 Whether IBI Bank was right in making the deductions when the policy was returned

    on the account of fraud and misrepresentation.

    3 Whether the IBI Bank is liable to pay interest on the delay caused in refunding,compensation for mental agony and litigation fee of the complainants.

  • 7/28/2019 B7 Complainantllknnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn moot

    8/17

    INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013

    WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT Page 7

    SUMMARYOFARGUMENTS

    1. Whether misleading and fraud by Mr. X amounts deficiency of service?The act of IBI Bank amount to deficiency of service as Deficiency defined under

    section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .The basic principle or doctrine of

    insurance policy is uberrima fides which is the doctrine of utmost good faith. It is the duty

    of the insurer to disclose all material facts truly to the person getting the policy. Mr. X

    made a false representation of the policy telling Ashok Kumar to be one time investment

    policy instead it being an annual premium policy. Clause (r) of the consumer protection

    act defines unfair trade practices as a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting

    the sale, use or supply of any good or for provision of any service. Insurance policy being

    a contractual obligation and the policy in the instant case being made to sign by fraud.

    The suggestion should be as to a fact which in the instant case was concerning the most

    important fact of premium which Mr. X stated to be one time premium instead of being

    an every year payment of Rs.50,000. Thus it can be clearly made out that the intention of

    Mr. X was to induce Ashok Kumar to sign the policy which he did sign, which amounts

    to deficiency of service by IBI Bank.

    2. Whether IBI Bank was right in making the deductions when the policy wasreturned on the account of fraud and misrepresentation?

    The policy that was entered into by Mr. Ashok Kumar contained a free look period

    clause according to which if the investor is not satisfied with the terms and conditions ofthe policy, he could return the policy within fifteen days of receiving the policy and get

    his principle investment back subject to deduction of administrative charges and any

    fluctuations in stock market. The question of not being satisfied with terms and

    conditions of the policy does not arise as the payment of premium is the basic essence and

    fact of any policy. Fraud being committed by Mr. X by wrong statement of this fact was

    the only reason which led Ashok Kumar to return the policy.

  • 7/28/2019 B7 Complainantllknnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn moot

    9/17

    INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013

    WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT Page 8

    Denning LJ in one the case observed, "I cannot accede to this argument for a moment,

    no Court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained

    by fraud. No judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has

    been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. The Court is careful not to

    find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved it vitiates

    judgments, contracts and all transactions whatsoever." It is even general principals of

    equity that in case of fraud the benefit arising to the benefactor must be restored back to

    the deceived party. With Mr. X committing fraud, the complainant suffered a damage of

    Rs.1,500 on the new policy and Rs.700 the interest or maturity amount on the old policy

    which Mr. Ashok Kumar had cancelled so as to take up the new policy. So IBI Bank is

    liable to refund the whole amount.

    3. Whether the IBI Bank is liable to pay interest on the delay caused in refunding,compensation for mental agony and litigation fee of the complainants?

    Complainant had purchased the policy only when he was fraudently made to

    understand by Mr. X that the premium had to be paid just once i.e. Rs.50,000 to be paid

    one time instead on paying Rs.50,000 annually. The refund was made after more than

    three months of the acknowledging the request. The refund was demanded on 23rd

    October,2010 but the same was refunded on 3rd feburary,2011 and that too with

    deductions of Rs.1,500 made wrongly. When the earlier policy was cancelled the amount

    for the same was credited to the complainants account within 3 days, though the refund

    demanded for a policy which did not have a valid consent, and was still in free look

    period took three months is unreasonable and arbitrary. The Interest on the amount

    refunded should be paid. The compensation for the mental agony caused to the

    complainant should also be paid as Mr. X, knowing that the money Mr Ashok Kumar was

    investing was out of his retiral benefits and he was in great need of the money.

  • 7/28/2019 B7 Complainantllknnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn moot

    10/17

    INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013

    WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT Page 9

    ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

    I. WHETHER MISLEADING AND FRAUD BY MR.X AMOUNTS DEFICIENCY OFSERVICE?

    Deficiency according to section 2(1)(g) of the consumer protection act, 1986

    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.1

    The Principle Of Utmost Good Faith :

    The basic principle or doctrine of insurance policy is uberrima fides which is the

    doctrine of utmost good faith. It is the duty of the insurer to disclose all material facts

    truly to the person purchasing the policy. The advice given to the investor or the policy

    purchaser is included in the service that the company/bank provides. It is the duty of the

    agent/servant of that company to see into the requirements of the person and advice him

    accordingly. Mr. X in the instant case instead of disclosing full and correct information

    about the policy advised him to invest in a policy fraudently.

    Further in the matter of The United India Insurance Company v. M/s. M.K.J.

    Corporation2 Honble Supreme Court held that both parties have a duty to disclose all

    material facts within their knowledge as insurance policy is a contract of good faith.

    1S. 2(1)(g), Consumer Protection Act, 1986

    2 1996, (2) CPC 310

  • 7/28/2019 B7 Complainantllknnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn moot

    11/17

    INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013

    WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT Page 10

    Fraud as per Law of Torts :

    Fraud according to law of torts is committed when (i) the defendant makes a false

    representation, (ii) the defendant made it fraudently i.e. knowing it to be false or not

    knowing it to be true, (iii) the plaintiff made it with an intent that the plaintiff should act

    on it, (iv) the plaintiff by acting on it sustains damage3. Mr. X made a false representation

    about the policy telling Ashok Kumar to be one time investment policy instead it being an

    annual premium policy. Mr. X being an employee of IBI bank has a job to advice the

    policy takers and it is the most reasonable and implied presumption that he knew the true

    terms about the policy. He knew the exact type of policy Mr. Ashok Kumar wanted and

    suggested this policy misrepresenting the terms with an intention that Ashok Kumar willact upon his understanding and sign the policy.

    In Derry v. Peek4, it was held In an 'action of deceit the plaintiff must prove

    actual fraud. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made

    knowingly, or without belief in its truth, or recklessly, without caring whether it be true or

    false.

    In the case of Brownlie v. Campbell5, if one knows any circumstance at all which

    may influence the underwriters opinion as to the risk he is incurring, there is an obligation

    to disclose.

    Unfair Trade Practices

    Clause (r) of Section 2 ,Consumer Protection Act defines unfair trade practices

    as a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any good

    or for provision of any service. As per S. 2(1)(r)(1) the practise of making any statement,

    whether orally or in writing or by visible misrepresentation which as per (ii) falsely

    represents the services of a particular standard, quality or grade and as per (vi) makes a

    false or misleading representation concerning the need for and usefulness of, any goods or

    services.

    3Deciet, Law of torts

    4(1889) 14 AC 337

    5 (1880), 5 App Case 925

  • 7/28/2019 B7 Complainantllknnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn moot

    12/17

    INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013

    WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT Page 11

    Mr. X for selling the policy to Mr. Ashok Kumar falsely represented the policy to

    be a one time investment policy and mislead Mr. Ashok Kumar to take up a policy which

    he would not have taken if the true facts were stated by Mr. X. Further Mr. Ashok Kumar

    would not have cancelled the policy he took up two years earlier.

    Insurance- Contractual Obligation

    Insurance policy being a contractual obligation and the policy in the instant case

    being made to sign by fraud, the essentials of fraud and misrepresentation under the

    contract act are important to be looked into.

    In accordance with section 17 of the Indian contract act fraud means and includes

    any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by

    his agent with an intent to deceive another party or his agent, or to induce him to enter

    into contract when there is a suggestion, as a fact, which is not true, by one not believing

    it to be true6. Mr. X in the instant case did suggest Ashok Kumar to enter into a policy

    stating the facts which were not true knowing it not to be true. The suggestion should be

    as to a fact which in the instant case was concerning the most important fact of premium

    which Mr. X stated to be one time premium instead of being an every year payment of

    Rs.50,000. Thus the fact suggested was not true and it was made by Mr. X which did not

    believe it to be true. The intention of Mr. X was to induce Ashok Kumar to sign the

    policy which he did sign.

    Moreover the relationship between investment manager and the complainant is a

    fiduciary relationship and the breach of trust by such a person is arbitrary.

    It is the duty of the bank to disclose correct facts about the service being

    purchased. On investing Rs.50,000 in the policy suggested by Mr X, the consideration for

    the services of Mr X has been paid. Thus committing fraud on the terms of the policy

    amounts to deficiency of service.

    6 Section 17, Indian Contract Act

  • 7/28/2019 B7 Complainantllknnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn moot

    13/17

    INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013

    WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT Page 12

    II. WHETHER IBI BANK WAS RIGHT IN MAKING THE DEDUCTIONS WHENTHE POLICY WAS RETURNED ON THE ACCOUNT OF FRAUD AND

    MISREPRESENTATION?

    Free Look Clause :

    The policy that was entered into by Mr. Ashok Kumar contained a free look period

    clause according to which, if the investor is not satisfied with the terms and conditions of

    the policy, he could return the policy within fifteen days of receiving the policy and get

    his principle investment back subject to deduction of administrative charges and any

    fluctuations in stock market. The question of not being satisfied with terms and

    conditions of the policy does not arise as the payment of premium is the basic essence and

    fact of any policy is not agreed with. Fraud being committed by Mr. X by wrong

    statement of this fact was the only reason which led the complainant to return the policy.

    Ashok Kumar even accompanied his cancellation request with a letter stating his reason

    for cancellation of policy to be fraud and misleading by Mr. X about the most material

    fact about the policy.

    Fraud Vitiates Everything

    It is a well-established fact that fraud vitiates everything. Hon'ble Supreme Court in

    Commissioner of Customs, Kandla v. Essar Oil Ltd. was cited to point out from

    paragraph 31 of the judgment that fraud vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never

    dwell together and that fraud is anathema to all equitable principles.

  • 7/28/2019 B7 Complainantllknnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn moot

    14/17

    INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013

    WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT Page 13

    Moreover in the case of Lazarus Estate Ltd. Vs. Beasley7, A fraud is an act of

    deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of

    another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get

    an advantage." Denning LJ further observed, "I cannot accede to this argument for a

    moment, no Court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has

    obtained by fraud. No judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to

    stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. The Court is careful not

    to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved it vitiates

    judgments, contracts and all transactions whatsoever."

    It was held by the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court "No judgment of a Court,no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud

    unravels everything." Also In the ordinary course, once the mistake caused by fraud or

    otherwise is corrected, the benefits flowing from such mistake must also be reversed and

    restored to the benefactor.8

    All benefits gained by the bank for the fraud committed by Mr X must thus be

    restored to Ashok Kumar and all contracts and transactions must be vitiated.

    When consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, fraud or misrepresentation, the

    agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.

    A party to contract, whose consent was caused by fraud or misrepresentation, may, if he

    thinks fit, insist that the contract shall be performed, and that he shall be put in the

    position in which he would have been if the representations made had been true.

    It is even general principals of equity that in case of fraud the benefit arising to the

    benefactor must be restored back to the deceived party.

    IBI bank is thus liable to refund the full amount to Mr Ashok Kumar. Moreover the

    complainant cancelled the earlier policy on the fraudulent understanding made by Mr. X

    that new policy is a much better one and the policy was cancelled with the sole intention

    of talking the new policy where a premium of Rs.50,000 to be paid once. With Mr. X

    7(1956) 1 QB 702

    8 Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and Others

  • 7/28/2019 B7 Complainantllknnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn moot

    15/17

    INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013

    WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT Page 14

    committing fraud, the complainant suffered a damage of Rs.1,500 on the new policy and

    Rs.700 and the interest or maturity amount on the old policy which Mr. Ashok Kumar

    had cancelled so as to take up the new policy.

    III. WHETHER THE IBI BANK IS LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST ON THE DELAYCAUSED IN REFUNDING, COMPENSATION FOR MENTAL AGONY AND LITIGATION

    FEE OF THE COMPLAINANTS?

    Interest for Delayed Refund

    Complainant had purchased the policy only when he was fraudently made to

    understand by Mr. X that the premium had to be paid just once i.e. Rs.50,000 to be paid

    one time instead on paying Rs.50,000 annually. Thus fraud committed by Mr. X was the

    only and the prime reason for which the complainant cancelled the policy. The refund

    was made after more than three months of the acknowledging the request. The refund was

    demanded on 23rd

    October,2010 but the same was refunded on 3rd

    feburary,2011 and that

    too with deductions of Rs.1,500 made wrongly.

    When the earlier policy was cancelled the amount for the same was credited to the

    complainants account within 3 days, though the refund demanded for a policy which did

    not have a valid consent, and was still in free look period took three months is

    unreasonable and arbitrary.

    The IBI Bank should thus be liable to pay interest on Rs.50,000 at the rate this court

    may deem fit for the three months unreasonable delay that was caused.

    The complainant would earn a reasonable income on his investment if he had invested

    somewhere else or the fraud on the part of IBI Bank had not been committed.

    According to the Interest Act,1978 Section 3 clause (1) In any proceedings for the

    recovery of any debt or damages or in any proceedings in which a claim for interest in

    respect of any debt or damages already paid is made, the court may, if it thinks fit, allow

  • 7/28/2019 B7 Complainantllknnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn moot

    16/17

    INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013

    WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT Page 15

    interest to the person entitled to the debt or damages or to the person making such claim,

    as the case may be, at a rate not exceeding the current rate of interest, for the whole or

    part of the following period.9

    Further court as per Section 2(1) of the Interest Act,1978 defines it to be a court of

    law, a tribunal and an arbitrator. Thus the definition is exclusive and the present forum

    has the jurisdiction to consider the act.

    Mental Agony

    The compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant should also be paid

    as Mr. X, knowing that the money Mr Ashok Kumar was investing was out of his retiral

    benefits and he was in great need of money. The IBI Bank even caused a delay in refund

    which was unreasonable and the amount was refunded after a reminder being sent to the

    bank as well as to Mr X. The complainant was a retired chief engineer and any person at

    that stage would be in a need of money for consumption or for investing so as to use that

    in future. Adequate compensation for the mental agony caused to Mr Ashok Kumar for

    the fraud committed is humbly demanded from IBI Bank.

    Litigation Fee

    IBI Bank Should also be liable to pay litigation fee of the counsel for the complainant

    as the litigation fee is also the damage suffered by Mr Ashok Kumar as to the fraud

    committed by Mr X.

    9 Section 3, Intrest Act, 1978

  • 7/28/2019 B7 Complainantllknnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn moot

    17/17

    INTRA-DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013

    WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT Page 16

    PRAYER

    Wherefore in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly

    prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to:

    Order IBI Bank to grant a full refund of Rs50,000 by paying Rs.1,500 more whichthey had wrongfully deducted

    Declare interest on the delayed refund of principal amount, compensation for mentalagony and litigation fee of complainants counsel.

    Order IBI bank to restore the positions of parties as on 30th September, ask IBI bankto refrain from such practices and decide the issue in favor of the Mr. Ashok Kumar

    on merits.

    And pass any other order that this Honble Court may deem fit in the interests of justice,

    equity and good conscience.

    All of which is humbly prayed,

    B7,

    Counsel for the Complainant.