Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 31

Jagran Lakecity University, Bhopal

School of Law

Internship Report

Report Title: Summer Internship Report 2017

Semester:- IV

Under the guidance of

Adv. Shri Ravindra Tiwari

Name of Internal Guide: Mr. Ankit Singh

Period of Internship: 2nd June 2017 to 11th July 2017

Submitted by:-

Nikhilesh Mallick

BBA. LL.B.(Hons.)

2015BBLH024

29/08/2017

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr. Particulars Page No.


No.
1 Acknowledgement 3
2 Declaration 4
3 Executive Summary 5
4 List of cases referred 6
5 Report 7
6 Internship Diary 28
7 Conclusion 29
8 Learning Outcomes 30

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

As I sum up draft of my study, I appreciatively reminisce the contribution of all


those people without whose support and help, this study would have never taken
its present form.

I thank, Dr. Prof. CA Gurudath, Dean Academic Affairs, Jagran Lakecity


University, Dr. Yogendra Shrivastav, Director, School of Law, Jagran
Lakecity University and Mr. Ankit Singh, Asst. Professor, School of Law,
Jagran Lakecity University for giving me the opportunity to do my internship
under the guidance of Advocate Mr. Ravindra Tiwari.

My sincere thanks to Ms. Anika (Bajpai) Tiwari for guiding me a long way and
for successful completion of my internship within the time frame, whose
patience and faith in my abilities always boosted my confidence.

I am also thankful to Adv. Mr. Sujay Kumar Mallick for providing me with the
conceptual base and for their timely and valuable suggestions.

Signature: Nikhilesh Mallick

Date: 28/08/2017

3
1. DECLARATION

I, Nikhilesh Mallick hereby declare to have undergone Internship with


Adv. Ravindra Tiwari from 02/06/2016 to 11/07/2016. I confirm that
the summer internship report entitled Summer Internship Report 2017
is my original work. I have not copied from any other students’ work
or from any other sources except where due reference or
acknowledgement is made explicitly in the text, nor has any been
written for me by another person.

Date of Submission :- 28/08/2017

Nikhilesh Mallick

4
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

My internship under Adv. Ravindra Tiwari was a mix of research as well as


basic knowledge of courts and contracts. The project report consists of :-

1. The summary of research of cases done - The cases that were allotted to
me were majorly on Consumer Protection and Family Matters.
2. Practical knowledge - The report throws light in my day to day
experience about the agreements and the court visits as well as the
clerical work done.
3. Day to day report of my internship.
4. My learning outcomes.

5
3. LIST OF CASES REFERRED

1. Arjun Singh v. M/s Raj Radio and Airtel DTH


Services
2. Nilima Soni v. Oriental Insurance Company & Others
3. O.N.S. Trust v. Ramkrishna Dubey
4. Dr. R.S. Parihar v. United India Insurance Company &
Others
5. Oriental Insurance Company (Satna) v. Venkat Raj
Mandig
6. Arun Kumar Bhuraria v. M/s Surjjet Hyundai &
Others
7. Bharat Exim ‘N’ Handicrafts Pvt. Ltd. V. SBI General
Insurance Company Ltd.
8. Oriental Insurance Company v. Durgesh Sayyam
9. Chandni Rajput (Meshram) v. Kamal Rajput

6
REPORT

Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986:

Establishment of Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies. There shall


be established for the purposes of this Act, the following agencies,
namely:—

(a) a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to be known as the 'District Forum'


established by the State Government in each district of the State by
notification:
Provided that the State Government may, if it deems fit, establish more than one
District Forum in a district.
(b) a Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to be known as the 'State
Commission' established by the State Government in the State by notification;
and
(c) a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission established by the
Central Government by notification.

Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986:

Composition of the District Forum. —

(1) Each District Forum shall consist of,—

(a) a person who is, or has been, or is qualified to be a District Judge, who
shall be its President;

(b) two other members, one of whom shall be a woman, who shall have the
following qualifications, namely:—

(i) be not less than thirty-five years of age,

(ii) possess a bachelor's degree from a recognised university,

7
(iii) be persons of ability, integrity and standing, and have adequate knowledge
and experience of at least ten years in dealing with problems relating to
economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or
administration:

Provided that a person shall be disqualified for appointment as a member if


he—

(a) has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which, in
the opinion of the state Government involves moral turpitude; or

(b) is an undischarged insolvent; or

(c) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; or

(d) has been removed or dismissed from the service of the Government or a
body corporate owned or controlled by the Government; or

(e) has, in the opinion of the state Government, such financial or other interest
as is likely to affect prejudicially the discharge by him of his functions as a
member; or

(f) has such other disqualifications as may be prescribed by the State


Government;

(1A) Every appointment under sub-section (I) shall be made by the State
Government on the recommendation of a selection committee consisting of the
following, namely:—

(i) the President of the State Commission — Chairman.

(ii) Secretary, Law Department of the State — Member.

(iii) Secretary incharge of the Department dealing with consumer affairs in the
State — Member.

Provided that where the President of the State Commission is, by reason of
absence or otherwise, unable to act as Chairman of the Selection Committee, the
State Government may refer the matter to the Chief Justice of the High Court
for nominating a sitting Judge of that High Court to act as Chairman.

(2) Every member of the District Forum shall hold office for a term of five
years or up to the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier:

8
Provided that a member shall be eligible for re-appointment for another term of
five years or up to the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier, subject to the
condition that he fulfills the qualifications and other conditions for appointment
mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (1) and such re-appointment is also made
on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee:

Provided further that a member may resign his office in writing under his hand
addressed to the State Government and on such resignation being accepted, his
office shall become vacant and may be filled by appointment of a person
possessing any of the qualifications mentioned in sub-section (1) in relation to
the category of the member who is required to be appointed under the
provisions of sub-section (1A) in place of the person who has resigned:

Provided also that a person appointed as the President or as a member, before


the commencement of the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002, shall
continue to hold such office as President or member, as the case may be, till the
completion of his term.

(3) The salary or honorarium and other allowances payable to, and the other
terms and conditions of service of the members of the District Forum shall be
such as may be prescribed by the State Government.

Provided that the appointment of a member on whole-time basis shall be made


by the State Government on the recommendation of the President of the State
Commission taking into consideration such factors as may be prescribed
including the work load of the District Forum.

9
Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986:

Composition of the State Commission.

Each State Commmission shall consist of—


(a) a person who is or has been a Judge of a High Court, appointed by the State
Government, who shall be its President:
Provided that no appointment under this clause shall be made except after
consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court;
(b) not less than two, and not more than such number of members, as may be
prescribed, and one of whom shall be a woman, who shall have the following
qualifications, namely:—

(i) be not less than thirty-five years of age;


(ii) possess a bachelor's degree from a recognised university; and
(iii) be persons of ability, integrity and standing, and have adequate knowledge
and experience of at least ten years in dealing with problems relating to
economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or
administration:
Provided that not more than fifty per cent of the members shall be from amongst
persons having a judicial background.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, the expression 'persons having
judicial background'' shall mean persons having knowledge and experience for
at least a period of ten years as a presiding officer at the district level court or
any tribunal at equivalent level:
Provided further that a person shall be disqualified for appointment as a member
if he—
(a) has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which, in
the opinion of the State Government, involves moral turpitude; or
(b) is an undischarged insolvent; or
(c) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent
court; or
(d) has been removed or dismissed from the service of the Government or a

10
body corporate owned or controlled by the Government; or
(e) has, in the opinion of the State Government, such financial or other interest,
as is likely to affect prejudicially the discharge by him of his functions as a
member; or
(f) has such other disqualifications as may be prescribed by the State
Government.

1A. Every appointment under sub-section


(1) shall be made by the State Government on the recommendation of a
Selection Committee consisting of the following members, namely:—
(i) President of the State Commission........... Chairman;
(ii) Secretary of the Law Department of the State Member;
(iii) Secretary incharge of the Department dealing
with Consumer Affairs in the State............... Member:
Provided that where the President of the State Commission is, by reason of
absence or otherwise, unable to act as Chairman of the Selection Committee, the
State Government may refer the matter to the Chief Justice of the High Court
for nominating a sitting Judge of that High Court to act as Chairman.

1B.
(i) The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the State Commission may be
exercised by Benches thereof.
(ii) A Bench may be constituted by the President with one or more members as
the President may deem fit.
(iii) If the members of a Bench differ in opinion on any point, the points shall be
decided according to the opinion of the majority, if there is a majority, but if the
Members are equally divided, they shall state the point or points on which they
differ, and make a reference to the President who shall either hear the point or
points himself or refer the case for hearing on such point or points by one or
more or the other members and such point or points shall be decided according
to the opinion of the majority of the members who have heard the case,
including those who first heard it.

The salary or honorarium and other allowances payable to, and the other terms
and conditions of service of, the members of the State Commission shall be
such as may be prescribed by the State Government.
Provided that the appointment of a member on whole-time basis shall be made

11
by the State Government on the recommendation of the President of the State
Commission taking into consideration such factors as may be prescribed
including the work load of the State Commission.

Every member of the State Commission shall hold office for a term of five years
or up to the age of sixty-seven years, whichever is earlier: Provided that a
member shall be eligible for re-appointment for another term of five years or up
to the age of sixty-seven years, whichever is earlier, subject to the condition that
he fulfills the qualifications and other conditions for appointment mentioned in
clause (b) of sub-section (1) and such re-appointment is made on the basis of the
recommendation of the Selection Committee:
Provided further that a person appointed as a President of the State Commission
shall also be eligible for re-appointment in the manner provided in clause (a) of
sub-section (1) of this section:

Provided also that a member may resign his office in writing under his hand
addressed to the State Government and on such resignation being accepted, his
office shall become vacant and may be filled by appointment of a person
possessing any of the qualifications mentioned in sub-section (1) in relation to
the category of the member who is required to be appointed under the
provisions of sub-section (1A) in place of the person who has resigned.

Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), a person appointed as


the President or as a member, before the commencement of the Consumer
Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002, shall continue to hold such office as
President or member, as the case may be, till the completion of his term.

12
1. Arjun Singh v. M/s Raj Radio and Airtel DTH Services

(In the Hon’ble Court of Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Forum)

Facts:

 The appellant took a set top box connection of Respondent No. 2


from the Respondent No. 1. On 07/11/2013.
 Offer from the respondent no. 2 was that of from 07/11/2013 to
17/12/2013 will be free .
 If recharge is done for 10 months after the introductory offer
expires, 2 months service will be given for free.
 An additional recharge of Rs 100/- was needed to the offer to be
activated.
 On 07/12/2013, recharge of Rs 100/- was done by the appellant.
Charge of the new package were according to 220 Rs per month
which in turn resulted to Rs 2,200 per annum.
 With the recharge being done successfully, the connection should
have been activated from 07/12/2013 to 06/12/2014. But the
recharge expired just after 5 months, i.e. on 05/05/2014.
 Appellant asked the reason of the recharge getting expired much
before time from Respondent No. 2. The answer from them was
that there had been an up gradation to HD channels and addition of
sports channels. The appellant nowhere asked or applied for any up
gradation or addition of any channels.
 The appellant respected the respondents to solve his problems but
all his efforts went to vain.
 He filed a complaint in the Zonal Forum of Burhanpur . The
zonal forum refused to accept the complaint because of insufficient
evidence .
 The Zonal forum of Burhanpur on 18/11/2015 decided that the
Respondent No. 1 cannot be made a party to the complaint as he is
mere a agent for the Respondent No. 2. A mere agent shall have no
role in the case. Respondent No. 2 remained ex-parte.
 The appellant has appealed before the State Consumer Forum.

13
2. Nilima Soni v. Oriental Insurance Company & Others
(In District Consumer Forum of Bhopal under Section 12 of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986)
In brief for: Respondent

Facts:

 Mili Soni was registerd and put into “Happy Family Floater
Bima Policy”.
 At the time of taking the policy by the complainant, Mili Soni
was unmarried and was fully dependent on her family.
 But later, in the month of June 2010, Mili Soni got married.
 According to the rules and regulations of the policy, her name
must have been removed from the policy soon after she got
married. But this was not the case and neither did the
complainant inform the respondents about the said matter.
 During the renewal of the policy on 25/02/2011, Mili Soni was
still registered as an unmarried woman.
 Later, she was admitted to Yashodara Aspatal in Ghaziabad
for a gastro surgery.
 But, when the claim was required to fund for the gastro
surgery, the respondents found about the marital status of Ms.
Mili Soni.
 Ultimately, the claim was not given.
 As per the rules and regulations of the said policy claim can
only be provided to a widow or an unmarried woman.

The complaint remains pending before the District Consumer Forum of Bhopal
at the time of making this report.

14
3. O.N.S. Trust v. Ramkrishna Dubey
(In the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission )
In brief for: Appellant

Facts:

 Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,


1986
 In the subordinate District Consumer Forum of Sagar, the
respondent’s complaint was registered in such facts, that in the
appellant’s trust, the respondent submitted Rs 20,800/- at
different dates.
 In the form of dividend, the respondent has to pay Rs 100 per
month for 7 years i.e. up to the maturity period.
 There was an agreement between the two parties that a truck
will be purchased and every member of the trust will
contribute towards a loan. The future profit (if it happens), will
be distributed among the members of the trust according to
their respective shares including interest.
 In the subordinate court, Mr. Dubey put forth a statement that
O.N.S. Trust was not a trust, but a group created for business
profits. In that group, the respondent was also a member.
 The respondent invested Rs. 20,000/- in the trust.
 A loss was incurred by the trust in the agreement and some of
the money was returned to the respondent according to his
share in the agreement.
 Some of the amount was used for returning the loan taken
from the bank and the rest was returned to the respondent.
 The respondent filed a complaint in the Subordinate Consumer
Forum of Sagar in which the appellant was ordered:
 “To return Rs. 41,600/- and 26,000/- within one month . To
pay Rs. 2,000/- to cover for the lack of efficiency in service
provided and to pay Rs. 1.000/- for litigation expenses.

15
 Interest payable on the above per principle amount at the rate
of 7% annum.

Aggrieved by the Subordinate Forum’s order, the appellant


has appealed before the State Consumer Forum under Section
15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The grounds of Appeal are:


i. Documents and evidences provided by the appellant
were not given due importance during the delivery of
the order by the Subordinate Forum.
ii. Since a loss was incurred, the reasonable distribution
could not take place. For the situation, both the
appellants and the respondents are equitably responsible
but the Subordinate Forum only ordered the appellant to
pay the for the losses.
iii. For business purposes, the appropriate group was
formed but the Subordinate Forum applied the
provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The appeal is pending before the State Consumer Forum at


the time of making this report.

16
4. Dr. R.S. Parihar v. United India Insurance Company &
Others
(In the District Consumer Forum of Bhopal)
In brief for: Respondent

Facts:

 Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection


Act, 1986.
 The complainant insured his Ford Car for the duration of one
year dated 30/08/2011 to 29/08/2012 from the respondents
according to the terms and conditions of the policy.
 The complainant informed the respondents that his car met with
an accident on 28/05/2012. Vehicle Number MP-04-CC-4196.
 The respondents appointed a surveyor, Shri Praveen Mishra. He
surveyed the accident spot and the vehicle.
 Surveyor decided the loss amount to be 12,587/- and issued a
cheque (008545) dated 16/08/2012 provided by HDFC Bank.
But the complainant refused to accept the check.
 Surveyor is an independent person/entity whose report is
considered as an important document. If the complainant is
unhappy or not satisfied by the amount decided by the
surveyor, he has the right to approach the Civil Court.
 The respondents in their written statement(WS) mentioned that
there is no provision for providing the surveyor report to the
insurance holder. They also mentioned that they are ready to
provide with the survey report if the court orders them to do so
and according to the rules.
 The complainant has provided with the receipt of the damage
repairing company and according to the receipt, the total,
expenditure was 56,760/-.
 It is worth noting that the vehicle damaged was more than 3
years old so as result, depreciation of body must be charged at
25% and depreciation of rubber at 50%.

17
 Deduction according to depreciation is mentioned under
Section 1 of the rules and regulations of the policy.
 The complainant on 25/06/2012 showed an amount of 56,760/-
which was not at all relevant or reasonable to the real accident.
 As per bill no. 2 presented by the complainant, damages for
strut assembly (front suspension) left hand side have also been
charged. On “Stimet Date(30/05/2012), there was no
description of this point.
 The bill also added the expenses for tube tyre, engine oil, oil
filter, etc. which is not covered under any claim.
 There were minor damages on the right hand side of the vehicle
but the complainant was also claiming left hand side damages
unnecessarily.
 The complainant is knowingly claiming more than what has
been the real damage to the vehicle.

The present complaint is pending before the District consumer Forum, Bhopal
at the time of making this report.

18
5. Oriental Insurance Company (Satna) v. Venkat Raj Mandig
(In the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission)
In brief for: Appellant

Facts:

 Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.


 Insurance Holder, who is the respondent in the present appeal,
insured his Hyundai Verna car (MP-19-CA-7940) dated from
11/11/2013 to 12/11/2014. According to the terms and
conditions.
 The respondent on 14/03/2014 had to go to his village and gave
the car keys to his servant, Mukesh Rajak (approx 18 years
old) .
 On 17/03/2014, the servant with the help of his friend stole the
above mentioned car. While fleeing with the car, they ran the
vehicle into an electric pole.
 The respondent’s neighbour provided with the information of
the accident to the respondent.
 The respondent returned on 19/03/2014 and lodged a complaint
in the Police Station. He made a statement that he left the car
keys with his confidant servant, who with his servant made the
theft.
 Police lodged a FIR under Section 381 if Indian Penal Code
1860.
 Both the accused accepted that they did steal the vehicle.
 The respondent informed the appellant about the accident.
 The surveyor estimated the total loss of Rs. 1,09,397 in which
salvage amount was estimated to Rs. 4,397/- .

19
 When the appellant found that the car met with an accident
during theft, which was not covered under the policy, the claim
was consequently cancelled.

District Consumer Forum of Satna ordered the appellant to pay Rs. 1,34,957/-,
according to the surveyor’s report and Rs 1,000 for litigation expenses, interest
payable on the above per principle amount at the rate of 6% per annum.

Aggrieved by the order of the Subordinate Forum, the appellant has appealed
before the State Consumer forum under Section 15 Consumer Protection Act,
1986.

Grounds of Appeal:

i. According to the terms and conditions of the policy, the order is


expected to be cancelled.
ii. Theft by household servant is not covered under the policy even
after the Subordinate Forum has passed the ordered the appellant
to pay for the same.
iii. Insurance Holder (Respondent) himself handed over the key of the
vehicle to his trustful servant.
iv. The Subordinate Forum neglected the depreciation value as per
the surveyor’s report.

The appeal was pending before the State Consumer Forum at the time of
making this report.

20
6. Arun Kumar Bhuraria v. M/s Surjjet Hyundai & Others
(In the District Consumer Forum of Bhopal)
In brief for: Complainant

Facts:

 Complainant purchased Hyundai Grand i10 (Sportz) model from


Surjeet Hyundai who happens to be a major dealer of Hyundai
cars in city of Bhopal.
 Engine Number of the vehicle: G-4, L.A, G.M, 939410 .
 Chassis No. : M.A.L.A 8151 CLGM 413255*A .
 During the purchase of the vehicle, an electric key and a
mechanical key for the vehicle was provided. In normal
scenarios of car sales, generally the same kind of key is
provided.
 The complainant enquired the headquarters of Hyundai Motors
via e-mail and customer care. The complainant was told that by
additionally paying Rs 7,000/- , he’ll be provided with the spare
electronic key.
 After several attempts, the complainant was not provided with
the electric key.
 The complainant filed a complaint in the district Consumer
Forum of Bhopal.
 It was contended before the District Forum that normally during
the sale of a 4 wheeler, a set of 2-3 keys of the same type is
provided to the customer. The cost of the electronic key is
included in the total cost of the vehicle. So demanding extra Rs.
7,000/- for an extra key cannot come under fair trade practices.
 According to the complainant, the problem with the dealer
started from the day of purchase itself, i.e. 22/04/2016.
 The complaint has been lodged in time accordingly.

Prayer:

a) To order the respondents to provide with the electronic key of the


vehicle without charging any additional cost.

21
b) To pay for the mental and physical agony faced by the
complainant, Rs. 25,000/-.
c) To cover for the litigation expenses, Rs. 5,000/-.
d) Any other remedy which is deemed fit by the District Forum.

The complaint was pending before the District Consumer Forum of Bhopal at
the time of making this report.

22
7. Bharat Exim ‘N’ Handicrafts Pvt. Ltd. V. SBI General
Insurance Company Ltd.
(In the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission)
In brief for: Bharat Exim ‘N’ Handicrafts Pvt. Ltd.

Facts:

 The complainant is running a business of leather toys and


handicrafts since 1991.
 The complainant insured his godown and took insurance under
“Standard Fire and Special Perils” Insurance policy dated from
04/03/2015 to 03/03/2016.
 Policy No. 0000000001618822-01.
 The insurance covered all the losses that could happen by fire.
 On 21/04/2015, the insured godown caught fire and stock which
was kept there was destroyed completely.
 The respondent immediately appointed a surveyor , M/s B.K
Agrawal & Associates . The final survey was done by
Bhatwadekar Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assesors Pvt. Ltd.
 All the documents which were needed by the surveyor to complete
the surveying process was provided by the complainant.
 On the day of receiving the surveyors’ report, the insurance
company (respondent) paid the interim amount of Rs
1,00,00,000/- on 29/01/2016 and the remaining claim on
31/03/2016 which was Rs 1.16.06,686/- .
 As a result, the complainant received Rs 2,16,06,686/- in total.
 Surveyor in the total loss of Rs 3,24,99,732/- without any
justified reason reduced Rs. 23,928/- and in the name of old stock
reduced 32,47,580 which reduced the total loss to Rs. 2,98,28,228
which is not morally and ethically right.
 Reducing 10% of the loss in the name of old stock is not at all
reasonable or prudent.
 The complainant insured the whole stock as one and not on the
basis of ‘new or old’.
 By paying less claim of the total loss, the insurance company did
not fulfil its service efficiently.

23
 The claim was received “Under Protest” by the complainant.
 The State Consumer Forum has the jurisdiction to hear the case as
it falls under its territorial jurisdiction and the claim is above Rs.
1, 00, 00,000. The issue was raised in Indore.

Prayer:

a) To order the Insurance Company to pay the whole amount as per


the surveyor report.
b) To cover for the mental and physical agony faced by the
complainant, Rs. 30, 00,000.
c) To cover for the litigation expenses, Rs. 10, 00,000
d) And any other remedy that the State Consumer Forum may
deem fit.

The suit was pending before the State Consumer Forum at the time of making of
this report.

24
8. Oriental Insurance Company v. Durgesh Sayyam
(In the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission)
In brief for: Appellant

Facts:

 Appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,


1986.
 The respondent got his vehicle insured with the insurance
company (appellant).
 The respondent’s vehicle met with an accident on 18/09/2013.
He then applied for the claim.
 While investigating the situation, the appellant found out that the
claimant did insure his vehicle as a ‘private’ vehicle but was
using as a taxi and had extra passengers than the registered
number at the time of the accident which was against the terms
and conditions of the policy.
 Consequently, the appellant rejected the claim.
 The respondent filed a complaint in the District Consumer
Forum of Sivni which ruled in the favour of the respondent.
 Aggrieved by the Subordinate Court’s order, the appellant has
filed an appeal before the State Consumer Forum of Madhya
Pradesh .

Grounds of Appeal:

i. The order of the Subordinate Forum is expected to be quashed as


the actions of the respondent were against the terms and conditions
of the policy.
ii. The appellant did provide with sufficient documents and evidences
but all were ignored by the Subordinate Court while passing the
order.
iii. More than the registered number of passengers were travelling in
the vehicle at the time of the accident.

25
iv. The Subordinate Court did accept that more than registered number
of passengers were travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident
but still ruled against the appellant.

26
9. Chandni Rajput (Meshram) v. Kamal Rajput
(In the Family Court (No. 1) , Bhopal)
In brief for : Kamal Rajput

Facts:

 Wife not wanting divorce but claiming maintenance from the


husband.
 Wife applied false allegations over her husband.
 Wife allegedly said that the husband of hers used to treat her very
rudely and harshly.
 She also falsely alleged that her husband once kicked her in the
stomach during her gestation period which resulted in giving
birth to her child pre-maturely.
 Wife had an extra marital affair and even maintained physical
relations out of her wedlock.
 According to the husband, her wife was constantly glued to her
phone and when told about it, she taunted her husband as an
illiterate man.
 She often used obscene words and had profanity to her husband.
Always wished for a high standard of living and did incur
unnecessary expenses.
 One fine day left her husband’s house over a pity issue.
 She deprived her husband’s conjugal right and always kept their
daughter away from her father.
 Husband now claiming divorce under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.

27
INTERNSHIP ACTIVITY DIARY

Name: Nikhilesh Mallick

Programme: BBA. LL.B. (Hons.)

Sr Day Details of Activity/Assignment Observation


No
1. Day 1 Meeting with the Advocate Learnt professionalism
2. Day 2 – Day 7 Visited the District & State Consumer Forum Learnt how records are
kept in the case files.
3. Day 8 Visit to the District Court Learnt about the
hierarchy of Courts.
4. Day 9 Visited the advocate’s chamber Observed the
advocate’s
professionalism.
5. Day 10 – Day Read case files in the advocate’s chamber. Learnt about Consumer
11 Cases.
6. Day 12- Day 13 Assigned research on various cases and topics. Learnt to summarise
cases
6. Day 14 – Day Visit to the District Court, accompanied my Learnt about the
21 Advocate guide and carried files. complicacy of
maintaining
Advocate’s diary.
7. Day 22 – Day Saw my Advocate’s meeting with some clients. Learnt how to take
34 intricate details from
Submitted my cases research. clients.

28
CONCLUSION

My internship experience was very learning and I improved my research


skills, learnt the complicacy of Courts and Consumer Forums, saw a few
agreements and the value of time management and meeting deadlines.

My Advocate guide and his juniors were very supportive who understood the
fact that I was a novice hence my internship was confined to basic
knowledge that they thought was required for me. I am thankful to the
guidance that was provided to me by the guide and the time he spared for
me.

29
LEARNING OUTCOMES

This assignment presented me an opportunity to work under an advocate and


know their works. The experience of my advocate was a great aid in teaching
me new things.

I was also asked once to type few sections of the Consumer Protection Act 1986
which helped me gain more knowledge about the laws prescribed by the
government which helps in commercial as well as personal transactions.

It helped me to learn how to give back to the society and bring about a change
in the way things work. It most importantly taught me the significance of team
work in our life. While working with other interns and other members under my
advocate, I learnt how teamwork can help bringing about a difference in the
society and how easy the toughest situations become.

30
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Law of Torts With Consumer Protection Act, R.K Bangia


2. Modern Hindu Law, Paras Diwan & Peeyushi Diwan
3. Family Law by Paras Diwan

31