1|Page

T35– P
TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
CLINICAL MUNICIPAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

BEFORE THE

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT

TRICHINOPOLY

FILED U/S 34 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

COMPLAINT NO. XX/2023

IN THE MATTER OF

SAMMY..…………………………………………………………..….COMPLAINANT

V/S.

THE MILLENNIAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGIES………… OPPOSITE PARTY

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 2|Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................................3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES AND STATUTES REFERRED.............................................................4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.....................................................................................................5

STATEMENT OF FACTS....................................................................................................................6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES...................................................................................................................8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMETS..............................................................................................................9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...........................................................................................................110

1. I. WHETHER THE OPPOSITE PARTY HAS INDULGED IN UNFAIR TRADE

PRACTICES BY MEANS OF THEIR ACTIONS
II. WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT CAN BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM
COMPENSATORY DAMANGES FOR THE ACTS UNDERTAKEN BY THE OPPOSITE
PARTY

PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………………….1
7

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

3|Page

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ATC Authorized Training Centre

CPA Consumer Protection Act

DCDRC District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

IT Information Technology

MC Millennial Council

MIT Millennial Institute of Technologies

LTI LOVO Technologies Institute

Ors Others

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Vs. Versus

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

4|Page

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASE LAWS

 Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and ors,
1986 AIR 1571
 Manu Solanki and Ors v. Vinayaka Mission University and Ors

 Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC
Online SC 1546.
 Mantora Oil Products (P.) Ltd., Kanpur v. Oriental Insu rance Company Ltd., Kanpur,
I (1991) CPJ 323 (NC).
 Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Govindan Raghavan, (2019) 5 SCC
725.
 India v. Consumer Education & Research Centre, (1995) 5 SSC 482.
 Burger King Corporation v Hungry Jack's Pty Limited [2001] NSWCA 187 (21 June
2001).
 Olley vs Marlborough Court Ltd. (1949) 1 KB 532
 Ballard vs. Sebring Proprietary Company, [2014] VCAT 1636.
 Kailash Nath Associates v Delhi Development authority, (2015) 4 SCC 136.
 FITJEE Ltd. vs Mrs. Nisha Aggarwal on 6 May, 2022.
 VIACOM 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. vs. MSM Discovery Pvt. Ltd., 2011, para 112-113.
 Justice K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.
 Frankfinn Institute Of Air vs Ritika Rana on 10 May, 2022.
 Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141
 Lucknow Development Authority vs. MK Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787
 Charan Singh V/s Healing Touch Hospital & Ors, (2000) 7 SCC 668

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

5|Page

STATUTES REFERRED

 The Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 The Information Technology Act, 2000
 IT SPDI Rules, 2011
 The Constitution of India, 1949

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 6|Page

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Complainant has filed the case before theDistrict Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Trichinopoly, in the matter of Sammy v. The Millennial Institute Of
Technologiesunder Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act , 2019 and Rule 3 of the
Consumer Protection (Jurisdiction of the District Commission, the State Commission and the
National Commission) Rules, 2021. Section 34 and Rule 3 reads hereunder:-

34. Jurisdiction of District Commission –

(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have
jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as
consideration does not exceed one crore rupees:
Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may
prescribe such other value, as it deems fit.

 (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of
whose jurisdiction, --

a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more
than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or
carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or
b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the
institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on
business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that
in such case the permission of the District Commission is given; or
c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or
d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain.

(3) The District Commission shall ordinarily function in the district headquarters
and may perform its functions at such other place in the district, as the State
Government may, in consultation with the State Commission, notify in the Official
Gazette from time to time.

3. Jurisdiction of District Commission.—Subject to the other provisions of the Act and in

pursuance of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 34 of the Act, the District Commission shall
have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as
consideration does not exceed fifty lakh rupees.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 7|Page

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

1. The Millennial Council is an organization in Indo having headquarters at Bombay offering

Cybersecurity certification, education, training and services in various cybersecurity skills.
On 5th October 2020, the Indo Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology notified
that anybody seeking to become an ethical hacker must be certified by the MC. The MC
established Authorised Training Centres (ATCs) for the same in more than 100 cities in
Indo. MC also partnered with institutes to offer ethical hacking courses as MC’s official
academic partner.
2. LTI is an autonomous training centre based in Trichinopoly, an Indo city. To contribute to
the quality of education in the IT industry in Indo, LTI provides free training courses in IT
software.The Millennial Institute of Technologies (MIT) is an Authorised Training Centre of
the MC located in Trichinopoly.
RELATION BETWEEN LTI & MIT
3. LTI in an attempt to become partner with MC offers to sponsor their trainer employees to
pursue the Certificate Course on Ethical Hacking provided by one of the ATCs which is
MIT in Trichinopoly.
4. LTI paid the total fees of Rs. 5,00,000 to MIT on June 14, 2022. The classes were to be held
every week on Sundays from August 2022 to January 2023. The course duration was for six
months and it had 20 modules in total. All students enrolled in the course would undertake a
final test in February 2023.
PROBLEM BEGINS
5. Sammy, 30, is a software trainer working in LTI and he is one among the persons who is
been sponsored by LTI to take up the Ethical Hacking course. He attended the classes on
Sunday as mentioned in the schedule but Sammy found that the Course instructor does not
teach well and started of with Module 3 and Module 4. It is basic to note that one can able to
easily understand the unknown subject only if it starts from the basic but here the instructor
straightaway jumped to Module 3 and 4.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 8|Page

6. Sammy complained about the course instructor’s approach but MIT does not provide
solution and asked him to follow the Course Instructor. Due to which Sammy has no other
way but to chose alternative method of writing Exam through 2 years minimum experience
in information security field. He stopped attending classes and enrolled for examination by
paying Rs.10000 as registration fee.
7. MIT’s website had the exam eligibility form to proceed further. The form stated as follows:
“Thank you for your interest in the MC certification Exam. Please fill out the form below
and an email will be sent to you with instructions regarding the application process.”But
unfortunately, against what was mentioned by them in the form, they have shared the receipt
e-mail with Sammy and LTI though Sammy applied for the examination in second method
through his experience.
8. While filling the exam eligibility form Sammy listed his supervisor’s name at Tipro to act as
his verifier since he took second job at Tipro after his working hours in LTI because of his
family situation and he had a good experience in information security through his job at
Tipro. To utter shock Sammy came to know that LTI also received a receipt email of his
application due to which they fired Sammy in terms of unethical conduct of having second
job and LTI informed Tipro as well because of which Sammy’s verifier at Tipro refused to
verify Sammy’s experience at Tipro and also fired Sammy. MIT rejected the exam eligibility
form.

SAMMY APPROACHED THE DCDRC, TRICHINOPOLY

9. Sammy lost his two jobs and even MIT has rejected his exam eligibility form and when he
sought for the refund of the form fees with MIT they refused. He left with no job and no
certification and has no other remedy than to approach this Hon’ble DCDRC, Trichinopoly.

THE DCDRC DECIDED TO HEAR THE MATTER

10. The DCDRC has decided to hear the matter and hearing is up before the DCDRC on
11.03.2023.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

9|Page

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

COUNSEL 1

2. WHETHER THIS COMPLAINT IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TRICHINOPOLY

3. WHETHER THERE IS ‘DEFICIENCY OF SERVICES’ BY THE OPPOSITE

PARTY TO THE COMPLAINANT

COUNSEL 2

4. WHETHER THE OPPOSITE PARTY HAS INDULGED IN UNFAIR TRADE

PRACTICES BY MEANS OF THEIR ACTIONS

5. WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR

THE ACT OF OPPOSITE PARTY

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 10 | P a g e

SUMMARY OF ARGUMETS

1. WHETHER THE OPPOSITE PARTY IS SAID TO HAVE INDULGED IN UNFAIR

TRADE PRACTICES BY MEANS OF THEIR ACTIONS

It is with utmost sincerity that the counsel for the complainant submits that the opposite
party has engaged in unfair trade practices and has drawn an Unfair Contract, the
definition of which can be seen in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019- By drawing an
unfair contract, breaching the privacy of the complainant by disclosing information,
imposing unfair privacy policy and refusing to refund the fee, causing grave harm to the
life and livelihood of the complainant and violating his rights under consumer protection
act, 2019, IT Act, 2000 and the Constituition of India.

2. WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT CAN BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM

COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR THE ACTS UNDERTAKEN BY THE OPPOSITE
PARTY

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble forum, that the complainant is entitled to
compensation for the deficiency of services, repeated unfair trade practices incurred by
the complainant, violation of their right to privacy, loss of employment, non receipt of
certification, the litigation costs and overall, mental agony caused to them by the
opposition.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

11 | P a g e

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

3. WHETHER THE OPPOSITE PARTY IS SAID TO HAVE INDULGED IN UNFAIR

TRADE PRACTICES BY MEANS OF THEIR ACTIONS

It is with utmost sincerity that the counsel for the complainant submits that the opposite party
has engaged in unfair trade practices and has drawn an Unfair Contract, the definition of
which can be seen in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Such a legislation that is
enacted for the cause of protecting consumers from predatory practices has to be seen
well in the monstrous light of the behavior posed by those in the likes of the opposite
party and the objective of the act, i.e effective administration of consumer grievances has
to be hence, fulfilled. It is also notable that the legislature has moved from the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 to the 2019 act with the intention to increase the scope for the
working of consumer rights and as a result of which the definition of Unfair Contract and
three new considerations for Unfair Trade Practices have also been included.

The following are the contentions of the complainant:

1. The opposite party has engaged in unfair trade practices by not refunding the fees paid
for the form.
2. The opposite party has drawn an unfair contract, which states that the refund cannot be
issued.
3. The opposite party has disclosed to third parties, the confidential personal information of
the complainant submitted to it
4. The opposite party has imposed a privacy policy, much in violation of the law

3.1 THE OPPOSITE PARTY HAS ENGAGED IN UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES BY

NOT REFUNDING THE FEES PAID FOR THE FORM

3.1.1 The counsel for complainants humbly advance that the opposite party has engaged in
unfair trade practices by not refunding the fees paid for the form and this attracts section
2(47)(viii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 20191 wherein:

1
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, § 2(47)(viii), No.35, Acts of Parliament, 2019 (India).

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

12 | P a g e

(47) "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 unfair
method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely…

…… (viii) refusing, after selling goods or rendering services, to take back or withdraw
defective goods or to withdraw or discontinue deficient services and to refund the
consideration thereof, if paid, within the period stipulated in the bill or cash memo or
receipt or in the absence of such stipulation, within a period of thirty days

3.1.2 As the facts go, the complainant had paid a significant sum of money for taking up the
exam in the hopes of getting a certificate and owing to the dissatisfaction caused by the
opposite party, sought a refund. When he sought a refund, MIT denied it under the
grounds of it being non-refundable.2

3.1.3 The contract being drawn in a way where the practice is that the fees are non-
refundable even in lieu of deficient services are, (despite recurring requests for the same)
is an unfair trade practice. As the Supreme Court held in Central Inland Water Transport3,
a contract where the parties are not on an equal footing with regard to bargaining power
and the contract seems more one-sided, it is a violation of public interest. Here, the
complainant has been working two jobs, moonlighting one of them in an obvious lack of
sleep, yet a strong desire to succeed in life, vested his trust in the organization in hopes of
earning a certification and moving to a foreign country for a better income and paid Rs.
10,000 as a fee.

3.1.4 When such a fee is refused to be refunded even when he was rendered ineligible to give
the examination purely owing to their lack of rendering services well, it is clearly a
violation of the ethos of consumer protection act, leaving the complainant hopeless in
lack of good services and penniless, owing to the arbitrary policy of non-refund. 4

2
TNNLU-Clinical Municipal Law Moot Court Competition- Moot Proposition, ¶12.

3
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and ors, 1986 AIR 1571.
4
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, § 1, No.35, Acts of Parliament, 2019 (India).

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

13 | P a g e

3.2 THE OPPOSITE PARTY HAS DRAWN AN UNFAIR CONTRACT WHICH

STATES THAT THE REFUND CANNOT BE ISSUED

3.2.1 The counsel for complainants put forth that any clause in a contract that binds the party
to a ‘refusal of refund’ becomes an unfair contract, by principle. This can be seen in
Section 2(46) of the Consumer Protection Act, 20195 wherein:

(46) "unfair contract" means a contract between a manufacturer or trader or service

provider on one hand, and a consumer on the other, having such terms which cause
significant change in the rights of such consumer, including the following, namely:—

….(iv) entitling a party to the contract to terminate such contract unilaterally, without
reasonable cause; or6

…..(vi) imposing on the consumer any unreasonable charge, obligation or condition which
puts such consumer to disadvantage7

3.2.2 Clearly, the objective of the aforementioned section is to give a broad scope to the
meaning of the unfair contract and gives a list of non-exhaustive clauses for when it will
be deemed to be unfair. This provision has adequate space to declare a stipulated term of
contract as unfair if it does work in the benefit of the consumer, not paving the way for
any mischief.8

3.2.3 The Opposite Party, here provided the services of tutoring people, in this case
Employees of LTE for the certification and had provided services of unsatisfactory
manner The complainant had paid Rs. 10,000 as a fee as a consideration 9 for the opposite
party to perform the contractual obligations and be eligible for the exam but later, when
requested the refund of the fee, it was denied as it was non-refundable. Further, the
5
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, § 2(46), No.35, Acts of Parliament, 2019 (India).
6
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, § 2(46)(iv), No.35, Acts of Parliament, 2019 (India).
7
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, § 2(46)(vi), No.35, Acts of Parliament, 2019 (India).
8
Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC Online SC 1546.
9
Mantora Oil Products (P.) Ltd., Kanpur v. Oriental Insu rance Company Ltd., Kanpur, I (1991) CPJ 323
(NC).

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

14 | P a g e

opposite party had terminated the contract unilaterally and has not refunded the fee. In
light of all of these actions, the contract is said to be an unfair contract.

3.2.4 It is notable that the Opposite party is a coaching centre and not an education institute
and as stipulated in Manu Solanki10 the National Consumer Redressal Commission held
that the coaching centre will not qualify to be an educational institute as they need to be
regulated under a regulatory body.

3.2.5 The terms of the contract that stipulate non-refund of the fee is said to be one-sided and
hence, arbitrary and unfair. In the case of Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure11 it was
held that a when the party has no choice but to just sign and accept the contract on dotted
lines, it cannot be final and binding. Here, the complainant was made to undertake these
classes as the certificate was a mandatory prerequisite under the Indo Ministry of
Electronics and Information Technology notification and the complainant had to take
it.12 Further, only upon request of refund was the complainant notified that the fee was
non-refundable. Atop this, the unilateral termination ultimately makes it one-sided.

3.2.6 Assessing one-sided, unfair and unreasonable terms, the Supreme Court in the LIC of
India Vs Consumer Education and Research Centre case13, it was held that in contracts
where there would be no occasion for the weaker party to bargain or assume equal
bargaining power, he is either made to accept the contract as it is or walk out and the
matter of meaningful choice is not even in question. These dotted lined contracts are
often made to undermine the rights of the weaker party.14

3.2.7 The refund being declined, upon the request, is testament to the fact that the terms were
not clearly stipulated even though there is a contract in place. If there is a claim that says
that notice of the terms have been given in writing or printing but no express notice had
been made or if there was no knowledge regarding the existence of the clause, the
contract can well be challenged. 15 In this case, the non-refund clause not being notified or
10
Manu Solanki v. Vinayaka Mission, I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC)
11
Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Govindan Raghavan, (2019) 5 SCC 725.
12
TNNLU-Clinical Municipal Law Moot Court Competition- Moot Proposition, ¶3
13
India v. Consumer Education & Research Centre, (1995) 5 SSC 482.
14
Burger King Corporation v Hungry Jack's Pty Limited [2001] NSWCA 187 (21 June 2001).
15
Olley vs Marlborough Court Ltd. (1949) 1 KB 532.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

15 | P a g e

the very presence of the non-refund clause is disputed as the non-refund clause puts the
complainant at a disadvantage and is also not necessary to protect the legitimate interests
of the opposite party. Such clauses that only end up causing significant imbalances to the
weaker parties’s rights and obligations and which is not reasonably necessary to protect
the legitimate interests of the party is unfair as given in Ballard vs. Sebring Proprietary
Company. 16

3.2.8 The counsel further humbly pleads that in the event of a "non-refundable," the party
must demonstrate that he has suffered a loss and that forfeiture of the sum is required. 17
Thus, it is clear that the burden of proof lies with the party who refuses to grant a refund
in order to establish the necessity of the condition for the contract and safeguard its
legitimate interest. An excuse for not returning the charge cannot simply be because it
says "nonrefundable" on the receipt. Maintaining such an irrational and biased constraint
on fee receiving constitutes an unfair trading conduct. If a student or trainee feels that the
service is inadequate, subpar, or unyielding, he or she is free to quit at any time. 18 It is
extremely unfair practice to inform them that after fees have been paid that they are
nonrefundable.

3.2.9 On the matter of unilateral termination of the contract, there should be a repudiatory
breach of the terms of the contract in order to validate the termination as stated in
VIACOM 18 Media case19 The complainant sternly pleads that there was no act done by
him that poses a deep contravention such that the very core principles of the contract is
breached and hence, such a termination unilaterally goes against the laws of the land.

3.2.10 It is hence argued that the complainant was not given a choice but to take up an
examination, for which he was not made eligible and only upon request of refund citing
dissatisfaction of services, the refund was said to be refused and consequently the
contract was unilaterally terminated. All of this culminate to unfair trade practice and
enforce an unfair contract, aggrieving the complainant to a massive extent.

16
Ballard vs. Sebring Proprietary Company, [2014] VCAT 1636.
17
Kailash Nath Associates v Delhi Development authority, (2015) 4 SCC 136.
18
FITJEE Ltd. vs Mrs. Nisha Aggarwal on 6 May, 2022.
19
VIACOM 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. vs. MSM Discovery Pvt. Ltd., 2011, para 112-113.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

16 | P a g e

3.3 THE OPPOSITE PARTY HAS DISCLOSED TO THIRD PARTIES, THE

CONFIDENTIAL PERSONAL INFORMATION OF THE COMPLAINANT
SUBMITTED TO IT

3.3. 1 The counsel for complainants put forth that the opposite party has engaged in unfair
trade practice by disclosing to third parties, the confidential personal information of the
complainant, which the complainant in full trust submitted to the opposite party,
attracting yet another provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 wherein, under
section 2(47), Unfair Trade Practice would involve

…(ix) disclosing to other person any personal information given in confidence by the
consumer unless such disclosure is made in accordance with the provisions of any law
for the time being in force20

3.3.2 In addition to this above statute, one must understand privacy is a fundamental right as
stipulated in the Puttaswamy Judgment21 and is acknowledged by the Indian Constitution.
This constitutional right has a significant impact on Indian law, shapes public policy and
court decisions, and serves as a check on all public and private forums. This case has
encouraged the creation of a right against invasions of privacy on a private front as well
in addition to its effects on public lawm which proves important to our case.

3.3.3 The disclosure of the complaiant’s personal information has been made by the opposite
party. The personal information includes the work experience as the form mandated.
With no due consideration to the consent obtained, the opposite party disclosed to LTI, a
third party, about the complainant’s work experience at TIPRO. The contract is entered
into only between the complainant and the opposite party and LTI is the third party and
them being the employer of the complainant or sponsoring the training has no relevance
for need of disclosure of information. Hence, such a disclosure is said to be a grave act of
violation of privacy and data protection laws.

20
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, § 2(47)(ix), No.35, Acts of Parliament, 2019 (India).
21
Justice K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

17 | P a g e

3.3.4 The counsel for complainant would like to highlight the Section 72A of the Information
Technology Act, 200022 that states: “72A. Punishment for disclosure of information in
breach of lawful contract.–Save as otherwise provided in this Act or any other law for the
time being in force, any person including an intermediary who, while providing services
under the terms of lawful contract, has secured access to any material containing
personal information about another person, with the intent to cause or knowing that he is
likely to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain discloses, without the consent of the
person concerned, or in breach of a lawful contract, such material to any other person,
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with
fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both,

3.3.5 Here, Personal Information would mean “any information that relates to a natural
person, which, either directly or indirectly, in combination with other information
available or likely to be available with a body corporate, is capable of identifying such
person” 23 The information that the complainant was working with another company was
indeed personal information such that it cannot be shared to another. The same rules
mandate under its rule 4 for the institution of a standard policy for privacy and data
disclosure, wherein:

“(1) The body corporate or any person who on behalf of body corporate collects, receives,
possess, stores, deals or handle information of provider of information, shall provide a
privacy policy for handling of or dealing in personal information including sensitive
personal data or information and ensure that the same are available for view by such
providers of information who has provided such information under lawful contract. Such
policy shall be published on website of body corporate or any person on its behalf and
shall provide for— (i) Clear and easily accessible statements of its practices and
policies; (ii) type of personal or sensitive personal data or information collected under
rule 3; (iii) purpose of collection and usage of such information; (iv) disclosure of

22
The Information Technology Act, 2000, § 72A, No.21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).
23
Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or
information) Rules, 2011, Rule 2(i).

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

18 | P a g e

information including sensitive personal data or information as provided in rule 6; (v)

reasonable security practices and procedures as provided under rule 8”24

3.3.6 The privacy policy of MIT also states that they would retain the personal information
and that was needed only to fulfill the purpose for which it was collected 25. Further, even
when spoken about sharing information, the policy states that it would be “Only sharing
and providing access to your information to the minimum extent necessary, subject to
confidentiality restrictions where appropriate, and on an anonymized basis, wherever
possible;”26 The sharing of information about the complainant was definitely not
necessary for the fulfillment of the purpose, it being giving an exam and even when done,
the information was not shared on an anonymized basis as the policy claims, much to the
agony of the complainant.

3.3.7 It is essential to note that under section 43A of the IT Act, 27 disclosure of sensitive
personal data has to be made under the following stipulations: (i) a body corporate is to
give a privacy policy for disclosure of information; (ii) consent must be procured (iii)
prior permission must be procured before such a disclosure. None of the following was
followed with and the opposite party, falling well within the ambit of body corporate 28
has failed to obtain the consent of the complainant and is violative of the rule 6 of the IT
Rules, 2011.29

3.3.8 Overall, the opposite party has violated the right to privacy of the complainant and
thereby indulged in an unfair trade practice, violating various laws in addition to the
consumer protection act such as the right to life under Article 21, the IT Act, 2000 and
IT-SPDI Rules, 2022 etc.

24
Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or
information) Rules, 2011, Rule 4.
25
TNNLU-Clinical Municipal Law Moot Court Competition- Moot Proposition, Annexure-I, Page 8.
26
TNNLU-Clinical Municipal Law Moot Court Competition- Moot Proposition, Annexure-I, Page 7.
27
The Information Technology Act, 2000, § 43A, No.21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).
28
The term body corporate is inclusive and non-exhaustive as it includes in its ambit company, firms, sole
proprietors, body of people, association of individuals etc. and as the opposite party is an active provider of
coaching services, it will come under the same.
29
Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or
information) Rules, 2011, Rule 6.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

19 | P a g e

3.4 THE PRIVACY POLICY IMPOSED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY IS

VIOLATIVE OF LAWS

3.4.1 The counsel for complainants humbly submit that in the light of Consumer Protection
Act, 2019, IT Act, 2000 and IT-SPDI Rules, 2011, the opposite party has been instituting
an unfair practice of making an arbitrary privacy policy.

3.4.2 IT-SPDI Rules, 2011, Rule 4 stipulates that the: , a body corporate that collects,
receives, possess, stores, deals or handle information of provider of information, shall
provide a privacy policy for handling of or dealing in personal information including
sensitive personal data or information which shall provide for disclosure of information
including sensitive personal data or information as provided in rule 6.

3.4.3 There is a prerequisite of obtaining consent in all of the disclosures, if have to be made
by the information collecting party, however, at the plain reading of the privacy policy, it
is clear that there are various instances of arbitrary language that coerces the parties using
the services of the opposite party to allow them to breach the privacy.

For an instance: “We might receive information about you from other sources and add it to
our account information. By using or continuing to use the site you agree to our use of
your information (including sensitive personal information) in accordance with this
Privacy Notice, as may be amended from time to time by eccouncil.org at its discretion.
You also agree and consent to us collecting, storing, processing, transferring, and
sharing information (including sensitive personal information) related to you with third
parties or service providers for the purposes as set out in this Privacy Notice.” 30 Or

“MIT websites will disclose your personal information, without consent, only if required to
do so by law or in the good faith belief that such action is necessary”

All of which seem to be extremely coercive in nature and one-sided, to further.

30
TNNLU-Clinical Municipal Law Moot Court Competition- Moot Proposition, Annexure-I, Page 6

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

20 | P a g e

3.4.4 It is humbly submitted that privacy policy issued by the opposite party violates IT
rules31 and imposes unfair contractual terms and unfair trade practices because the
opposing party erred in equating website usage with consent to the sharing of personal
information. It is also humbly submitted that the opposing party has engaged in unfair
trade practices and has enforced unfair contractual terms because the disclosure of
personal information falls does not even fall under the exemptions from unfair trade
practices set forth in the Consumer Protection (General) Rules, 202032.

31
Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or
information) Rules, 2011, Rule 4.

32
Consumer Protection (General) Rules, 2020, Rule 4.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 21 | P a g e

4. WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT CAN BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM

COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR THE ACTS UNDERTAKEN BY THE OPPOSITE
PARTY

4.1 THE COMPLAINANT IS ELIGIBLE AND ENTITLED TO CLAIM

COMPENSATION IN THE FORM OF REFUND OF FEE, DAMAGES AND
LITIGATION COSTS

4.1.1 The Counsel for petitioner submit that Section 39 of the Consumer Protection Act,
201933 stipulate that:

““39. (1) Where the District Commission is satisfied that the goods complained against
suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations
contained in the complaint about the services or any unfair trade practices, or claims for
compensation under product liability are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite
party directing him to do one or more of the following, namely:— ….. (c) to return to the
complainant the price, or, as the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant along
with such interest on such price or charges as may be decided; (d) to pay such amount as
may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by
the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party: ….(m) to provide for adequate
costs to parties”

4.1.2 The complainant paid Rs. 10,000 as a fee consideration to get his certification and as a
person who has to work extremely hard for ends to meet, that money is of massive value
to him. The complainant as a result of being ineligible, requested to get the refund of the
fee and was denied on the grounds it was non-refundable which information he was not
privy to until he requested for the refund. The coaching centres such as MIT, cannot deny
refund of fee and usurp it as given in Frankfinn Institute case.34

4.1.3 The opposite party has audaciously rendered deficient services and when asked for
refund has not returned the money in addition to disclosing his personal information
33
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, § 39, No.35, Acts of Parliament, 2019 (India).
34
Frankfinn Institute Of Air vs Ritika Rana on 10 May, 2022.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

22 | P a g e

rendering him unemployed and uncertified. The word compensation itself means to
expiate the losses suffered and it seeks to be a social insurance, welfare measure and
impose an obligation on the aggrievor to protect the aggrieved. In Rudal Sah35, it was
held that in any case of violation of fundamental rights, compensation was to be
provided. It states that a violation of a fundamental right creates a civil liability and
further gives a basis for liability in itself. In this case, there has been a breach of the right
to privacy of the complainant owing to the unfair trade practices of the opposite party,
hence the complainant is entitled to compensation.

4.1.4 In MK Gupta36 the Supreme Court emphasised the need for consumer forums to give
compensation equal to the harm suffered by the consumers. It was noted that the term
"compensation" had a very broad meaning and that, in a legal sense, it may refer to real
loss, anticipated loss, as well as physical, mental, or even emotional pain, insult, harm, or
loss. The Apex Court emphasised that when the forum or commission was given the
authority to evaluate value for goods or services and compensation, it had to be
interpreted broadly in order to allow it to decide recompense for any loss or injury a
consumer may have experienced. Any alternative interpretation would contradict the
intent behind the Consumer Protection Act as it is apurely beneficial legislation with the
objective of protecting the consumers.

4.1.5 The district forum, that is fully entitled to govern this case and grant punitive damages
under Section 39 must hence understand that they must make an active effort to serve the
ends of justice as when the compensation is given, it not only compensates the individual
but brings a concrete change in the quality of life, which the indivual had lost owing to
the harm caused to them.37

4.2 THE COMPLAINANT DESERVES AN APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION

THAT IS JUST, FAIR AND REASONABLY PROPORTIONATE TO THE HARM
CAUSED TO THEM.
35
Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141

36
Lucknow Development Authority vs. MK Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787
37
Charan Singh V/s Healing Touch Hospital & Ors, (2000) 7 SCC 668.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

23 | P a g e

4.2.1 The complainant has time and again faced serious repeated hits in the course of its
relationship with the opposite party via the following harms:

(a) Deficient Services that rendered them dissatisfied

(b) Repeated Exposition to Unfair Trade Practices by means of unsatisfactory services, no-
refund of fee despite repeated requests, disclosure of personal sensitive information
without consrnt

(c) Violation of their right to privacy

(d) Loss of Employment

(e) Non receipt of certification

(f) Mental Agony

(e) Litigation expenses

4.2.2 In account of all of these harms caused to the complainant, the complainant proceeds to
request the honourable court to grant them a sum of Rs. 15,00,000 in addition to the
refund of Rs. 10,000 and Litigation costs, citing reasons of severe loss incurredby the
complainant owing to the acts of the opposite party. It is of essence that the complainant
comes from an economically impoverished background which was highlighted as he was
working two jobs and this money is of essence to his growth and lifestyle. It is with
empty hands that the complainant has bowed before the honourable forum and believes in
the glory of justice it readily dispenses.

4.2.3 The complainant, in light of the above claims is entitled to the compensation of Rs,
15,00,000.

PRAYER

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 24 | P a g e

Wherefore in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly
and respectfully submitted that this District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, may be
pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. This District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Trichinopoly has jurisdiction to

entertain the filed complaint.
2. The Opposite Party is in fault and can be construed under ‘deficiency of services.’
3. The Opposite Party has involved in Unfair Trade Practices and should immediately
refrain from doing such activities.
4. The Complainant is entitled to ‘Compensation’ of Rs. 15,00,000/- under the Act along
with the costs of litigation.

COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT

DATE:

PLACE:

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT