P

1
IN THE HONOURABLE SUB-DIVISIONAL COURT SILIGURI

[PETITTION FILED UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE CPC, 1908]

MR. SINGHANIA ……PETITIONER

VERSUS

QUICKMART ..................................................... RESPONDENT NO. 1

MR. RATTAN ……RESPONDENT NO. 2

ON SUBMISSION TO THE SUB-DIVISIONAL COURT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATION ................................................................................II

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................. III

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................7

STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................8

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ................................................................................10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ........................................................................11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .............................................................................12

PRAYER .............................................................................................................22
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

& And

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

COI Constitution of India

CPC Civil Procedure Code

HC High Court

Hon‘ble Honorable

J. Judge

OP Opposite party

Ors. Others

S. Section

SC Supreme Court

U/S Under Section

V. Versus
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES:

 Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908

 Constitution Of India, 1949

 Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020

 Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 Indian Contract Act, 1872

 Indian Sales Of Goods Act, 1930

CASES REFERRED:

 E & S Ruben Ltd v. Faire Bros,1949, [1949] 1 K.B. 254… ............................................. 17

 Firbank‘s Executors v Humphreys, CA 1886… ................................................................... 21

 Halligua v Mohansundarum, AIR 1951 Mad 1056…........................................................... 19

 In Baldry v. Marshall (1926), [1926] 1KB 260… ................................................................ 16

 Indranath Banerjee v Rooke, 3 Ind Cas 316… ..................................................................... 21

 Jewson & Sons Ltd v Arcos Ltd, (1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 93… ................................................ 21

 Lochgelly Iron & Coal co. v. McMullan, 1934, [1933] UKHL 4… ................................... 19

 MASTER CHIRAG V. STAR HEALTH AND ALLIED INSURANCE CO., First Appeal
No.1588 of 2017… .............................................................................................................. 19

 Murlidhar Chiranjilal v. Harishchandra Dwarkadas and Anr. AIR 1962 SC 366, 1962 (1)
 SCR 653(SC) ........................................................................................................................ 14

 Narender Kaajla v. Flipkart, 2015, October 29th, 2015… ......................................................14

 Trimex International FZE Ltd., Dubai vs. Vedanta Aluminium Ltd, 2010 (1) SCALE
574…......................................................................................................................................12

 Vadiraja Rao v. Flipkart, 2019 , WRIT PETITION NO.40446 OF 2017 .............................. 14

BOOKS REFERRED

 C.K. TAKWANI, Civil Procedure With Limitation Act, 1963 ( EBC , 9TH ed. 2019)

 Dr. R.K Bangia, Contract-I (ALLAHABAD LAW AGENCY, 7TH ed. 2017, REPRINT
2019)

 Dr. R.K Bangia, Contract-II (ALLAHABAD LAW AGENCY, 7 TH ed. 2017)

 Dr. R.K Bangia, Law Of Torts (ALLAHABAD LAW AGENCY, 23RD ed. 2013, REPRINT
2016)

WEBSITES REFERRED

 Rajibhassan, Negligence As A Tort: Meaning Essentials And Defences, (accessed on 3rd

May, 2022 at 8:00 PM) http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1297/Negligence-As-A-
Tort:-Meaning-Essentials-And-
Defences.html#:~:text=INEVITABLE%20ACCIDENT%3A%20Inevitable%20accident%2
0also,it%20means%20accident%20physically%20unavoidable

 Diva Rai, Fraud in Contracts- Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, (accessed on 2 nd May,
2022 at 7:00 PM) https://blog.ipleaders.in/fraud-in-contracts-section-17-of-the-indian-
contract-act/
 LEGAL DATABASE

1. www.indiankanoon.org

2. www.indiancaselaws.org

3. www.indlaw.com

4. www.legalservices.in
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon‘ble Sub- Divisional Court of Aryavarta has the jurisdiction in this matter under as
Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as follows:
Courts to try all civil suits unless barred .-The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein

contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their

cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

Explanation [I ].-A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a

civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as

to religious rites or ceremonies.

[ Explanation II .-For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are

attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a

particular place.]

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONER
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Teaching has gone online, online education takes place over the internet. Mr. Singhania (aged
16 yrs.) is the student of a multi-media course in NCSU – a premiere institute of computer
education. The Course prescribed the requirement for laptop.

2. Mr. Singhania traced an e-commerce website on the internet named as Quickmart.com, a

private company renowned as a leading destination for online shopping in India which deals with
sale of fresh electronic computer items like laptop, desktop, printers etc. He placed an order via
cash on delivery system thereafter for the laptop that suits his requirement prescribed by the
Institute.

3. The company at the time of giving the confirmation order, delivered the description of the
other laptop model sent through company‘s email address to Mr. Singhania‘s email address. In
addition, there was a telephonic conversation between a company‘s executive named as Mr. Jain
and Mr. Singhania regarding the consent of buying and delivering the laptop at the desired
destination. As a matter of practice and in order to avoid confusion in the contract, the entire
conversation was recorded by the company. Thereafter, the laptop was delivered to him in a
couple of days at his desired destination through Speedy Class Couriers and he made the
payment accordingly. While checking the configuration of the laptop, he found that it was a
mismatch from what he had ordered, and therefore, defeating the purpose for which he wanted to
have the laptop i.e. rendering the laptop unfit for pursuing his computer course.

4. Mr. Singhania lodged a complaint on the customer care of the website named as
Quickmart.com and narrated the whole facts. The customer care department of such e-commerce
website, after a few days, called Mr. Singhania that after the investigation they found that the
order and the product delivered are of the same configuration. In addition to this, the e- commerce
website named as e- kart.com said that they will look into the matter again and get back as soon as
possible.
5. Mr. Singhania received no communication in this regard within a reasonable time period from
the company which has launched the leading e-commerce website named as quickmart.com. Mr.
Singhania called the customer care again but all he got was an automated computer generated
message that the problem is resolved. Mr. Singhania contacted to the company‘s office address
for further enquiry. He was told by the company that since Quickmart.com outsources orders
from private retailers as agents of the company, and therefore, the retailers are the ones who
dispatch the products. The company has nothing to do with this matter. After receiving the
retailer‘s address, Mr. Singhania went to the retailer‘s office, where the retailer Mr. Rattan as
agent of the company refused to speak to him by telling him that he was never his customer and
he has sent whatever was asked to him.

6. Furthermore, on the opening of the product, he finds that the product was a defective one and
so he called the service centre of the laptop company who said that since the product was bought
through a website, and therefore, that website shall provide the warranty. On going back to e-
kart.com on this issue, he finds that the details regarding his buying of laptop is totally erased by
the company. Mr. Singhania felt disheartened and disappointed.

7. Mr. Singhania further contacted to the retailer and narrated the whole story and declared his
intention to file a suit against the company. By observing the pathetic and depressed situation of
Mr. Singhania, the retailer as agent personally assured him by providing written
acknowledgement on the letter pad of the company admitting that such laptop will be replaced
within 10 days and Mr. Singhania will be having no complaint against the company in the near
future. Mr. Singhania did not find any solution in this regard even after one month. Furthermore,
he gave notice to the agent as well as the company regarding doing the needful in this regard
within another 15 days but no reply was given by any of them on this matter. Therefore, the case
has been filed under Section 9 of the code of procedure, 1908 before the Sub-Divisional Court of
LD. Civil Judge, Junior Division.
 ISSUES RAISED
I. WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A BREACH OF CONTRACT DONE BY
QUICKMART?

II. WHETHER OR NOT BREACH OF CONDITION IS DONE BY THE

COMPANY?

III. WHETHER OR NOT THE ACT OF NEGLIGENCE WAS COMMITTED BY

QUICKMART?

IV. WHETHER OR NOT THE ACT OF FRAUDULENT WAS COMMITTED BY

MR. RATTAN?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A BREACH OF CONTRACT DONE BY
QUICKMART?

The Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner humbly submits before the Hon‘ble Sub-
Divisional Court that an action of breach of contract was made by the Quickmart
Company. The counsel humbly puts forth that there was a valid contract established
between the petitioner and the company. The Counsel thus, humbly puts forth that
under such circumstances, Mr. Singhanias should be entitled to claim the damage
caused to him and be paid for the same.

II. WHETHER OR NOT BREACH OF CONDITION IS DONE BY THE

COMPANY?

The Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner humbly submits before the Hon‘ble Sub-
Divisional Court that an action of breach of condition was made by the Quickmart
Company. The counsel humbly puts forth that there was a breach of condition done
by the company.

III. WHETHER OR NOT THE ACT OF NEGLIGENCE WAS COMMITTED BY

QUICKMART?

The counsel on the behalf of the Petitioner humbly submits before the Hon‘ble sub-
divisional court that there has been an negligence on the part of the Quickmart
company.

IV. WHETHER OR NOT THE FRAUDULENT ACT WAS COMMITTED BY MR.

RATTAN?

The counsel on the behalf of petitioner humbly submits before the hon‘ble sub-
divisional court That the retailer, Mr.Rattan was fraudulent.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I. WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A BREACH OF CONTRACT DONE BY
QUICKMART?

The Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner humbly submits before the Hon‘ble Sub- Divisional
Court that an action of breach of contract was made by the Quickmart company.

The counsel humbly puts forth that there was a valid contract established between the petitioner
and the company. As section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 reads as “All agreements are
contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties, competent to contract, for a lawful
consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void.”1

The petitioner and the Quickmart company with the free consent had made a contract of
the specified laptop required by the petitioner and the same was communicated for
consent by the company via email (for confirmation), and a telephonic call regarding the
delivery, establishing to fulfill all the prerequisites of a valid contract.
In case of Trimex International FZE Ltd., Dubai vs. Vedanta Aluminium Ltd, 2010 (1)
SCALE 5742. The Supreme Court of India held that ―the contract between the parties was
unconditionally accepted through e-mails was a valid Contract which satisfied the
requirements of the ICA.‖
The petitioner from his end since was in the requirement of a laptop with the specific
configuration to the one which was needed for his multi-media course and had placed the
order according to his requirement which was reciprocated by the company via email, but
after the payment and delivery of the product, the petitioner Mr. Singhanias was shocked
to see the delivered product to have completely different configuration to the one he had
placed the order and to which the company had acknowledged. Causing a Breach of
contract by the company for the delivery of the product which was not approved by the
petitioner.
The petitioner Mr. Singhanias was heavily disheartened with the wrong delivery of the
1
section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
2
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 10 OF 2009
 product and as a good consumer he wanted to give a fair chance to the company to
explain the fault committed on their part so he did approach the company site demanding
the explanation for the fault done on their part, for which he received the reply as there
was no mistake from their side but they will look into the matter again and will get back
to him as soon as possible. But the petitioner Mr. Singhanias received no response within
a reasonable time frame so he tried contacting the customer care department of the
company again, but all he received was an automated computer generated message. He
then again tried contacting company‘s office for further enquiry where he was told that
since Quickmart.com outsources orders from private retailers as agents of the company
and therefore, the retailers are the ones who dispatch the products. The company has
nothing to do with this matter.
The petitioner Mr. Singhanias here had tried all necessary means to communicate and
understand the fault done on the part of the Quickmart company giving a fair chance for
the company to explain and settle the fault of wrong delivery of product done from their
end, to which the company seemed explicitly inconsiderate, causing a lot of time loss
along with hampering his educational sustainability as Mr. Singhanias due to the COVID
situation had to do an online class, for which he needed the laptop of a certain
configuration according to his course but was not able to do the same as the laptop
delivered to him was of a different configuration not satisfying to his needs. And also,
due to all this hassle he suffered from a lot of mental distress.
Hence, the petitioner would like to claim for all damages associated with the breach of
contract, thus attracting Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872- provides that
"When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to
receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or
damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from
such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to
result from the breach of it. Such compensation is not to be given for any remote and
indirect loss of damage sustained by reason of the breach"3
It further states that "When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been
incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is

3
section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
 entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default, as if such person had
contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract." 4
The explanation to Section 73 states that "In estimating the loss or damage arising from
a breach of contract, the means which existed of remedying the inconvenience caused by
non-performance of the contract must be taken into account."5
In the case of Murlidhar Chiranjilal v. Harishchandra Dwarkadas and Anr. AIR 1962
SC 366, 1962 (1) SCR 653(SC)6, The case debated on measure of the damages on breach
of the contract in sale of goods - There was foreseeable consequence of breach in the
knowledge of the parties - It was held that two principles in relevance to the
compensation for loss of damage caused by the breach of the contract as per Section 73
of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 read with the Explanation would be that the person who
has proved a breach of a bargain to supply what he contracted to get was to be place, as
far as the money could do it as if the contract had been performed - The reasonable steps
should be taken to mitigate the loss consequent to the breach.
In the case of Vadiraja Rao v. Flipkart, 2019 , WRIT PETITION NO.40446 OF 20177,
he had lodged a complaint with District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum seeking
compensation for the wrong delivery of product and non- replacement of the product on
May 13, 2019.
The forum the President C M Chanchala and member Manjula H heard the arguments
and found Flipkart Executive Director Sachin Bansal and Quickmart courier services
guilty. The forum has asked Flipkart to deliver the right product to the petitioner in six
weeks. Besides, it has asked the company to provide compensation of Rs 50,000 to the
customer for causing mental agony and expenditure made towards the petition. The
company has been directed to pay Rs 50,000 towards consumer forum welfare fund
within a week.
In the case of Narender Kaajla v. Flipkart, 20158, Mr. Kaajla was delivered the wrong
product and after subsequent request to take the wrong product and refund the amount
the company along with the retailer didn‘t take any heed to it for which the
4
Supra 1
5
Supra 1
6
AIR 1962 SC 366, 1962 (1) SCR 653(SC)
7
WRIT PETITION NO.40446 OF 2017
8
October 29th, 2015
 district consumer redressal forum of Pankhula asked Flipkart and the seller of Nintendo
DS, a handheld dual screen game console, to pay Narender Kaajla, a sector 20 resident,
Rs 10,000 for the damage done.

The Counsel, thus, humbly puts forth that under such circumstances, Mr. Singhanias should be
entitled to claim the damage caused to him and be paid for the same.
 II. WHETHER OR NOT BREACH OF CONDITION IS DONE BY QUICKMART?

The Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner humbly submits before the Hon‘ble Sub- Divisional
Court of the Union of Aryavarta that an action of breach of condition was made by the
Quickmart company. The counsel humbly puts forth that there was a breach of condition
done by the company.
As section 12(2) of the sale of goods act, 1930 defines condition as - a stipulation essential to
the main purpose of the contract, the breach of which gives rise to a right to treat the contract
as repudiated.9
The petitioner Mr. Singhanias had specifically stated or rather chosen the configuration of the
laptop the one which was according to the multimedia course that the petitioner had enrolled
for in NIT from the wide variety of laptops the Quickmart company offers.
The company had also agreed to have the laptop with the required configuration chosen by
Mr. Singhanias with a confirmatory mail for the same and it was further confirmed for
delivery by a telephonic call from the company‘s executive Mr. Harry.
After the delivery and payment the petitioner checked the laptop and to his dismay found the
configuration of the laptop to be totally different from the one he had placed the order for
thus, causing a breach of condition. The counsel on behalf of the petitioner would like to
humbly submit that the condition which was established during the formation of a valid
contract between the petitioner Mr. Singhanias and the Quickmart company, which lead to
arousal of several issues on the part of the petitioner as he was losing his time in obtaining the
early education basics relevant to the course along with a lot of mental distress for losing out
on his education as well as the inconsiderate attitude of the company for replacement.
Leading to the right of the petitioner to repudiate the contract and claim for damages
involved with it.

section 12(2) of the sale of goods act, 1930

2.5. In Baldry v. Marshall (1926)10, A consulted a car dealer and told him that he wanted to
purchase a car for touring purposes suggested that a Buggati car will be fit for the purpose.
Relying upon the statement, he bought the Buggati car. Later on, the car turned to be unfit for the
purpose of touring.

The Court observed that the suitability of the car for touring purpose was a condition because it
was so important that the non-fulfillment defeated the very purpose of defeated the very purpose
of purchasing the car. It was held that A was entitled to return the car and get back the price paid.

In E & S Ruben Ltd v. Faire Bros, 194911 1K.B.254. A agreed to buy some rubber material from
B. The sample of the rubber was shown to A. On receiving the rubber material, A found that the
measurement of the rubber material was different from that of the sample. The court held that
measurement of the rubber material was part of its quality. It was held that the goods did not
correspond to the sample.

An article published in the Times of India in the year 2014 had stated a complaint of a student
from Lucknow who had ordered for some clothes of her choice from an online shopping portal
but received a different set of clothes, after repeated complaints proving to be futile the student
launched a complaint in the District Consumer Forum which held the company liable for the
breach in condition with the damages incurred.

The Counsel, thus, humbly puts forth that under such circumstances, Mr. Singhanias should be
entitled to claim the damage caused to him and be paid for the same.

10
[1926] 1KB 260
11
[1949] 1 K.B. 254
III. WHETHER OR NOT THE ACT OF NEGLIGENCE WAS COMMITTED BY
QUICKMART?

The counsel on the behalf of the Petitioner humbly submits before the Hon‘ble sub-divisional
court of the Union of Aryavarta that there has been an negligence on the part of Quickmart.com

In this instance case, Mr. Singhania had ordered the very laptop prescribed for his Multi-
media course as compared to the order received he found that the that the laptop was not the one
he place order for, the laptop was of different configuration and unfit for his course.

Further, Mr. Singhania lodged a complaint on the customer care of the website an narrated
the facts, the reply he got was the product delivered was the same as the order placed and they
will look into matter again. Mr. Singhania after waiting for a reasonable time when found no
other option he again contacted the company the only reply he got was an automated computer
generated message that the problem is resolved which establishes a negligence on the part of
Quickmart.

Here in the present case, it was the duty of the Quickmart to resolve this matter which was
not taken due care by the OP. And a breach of duty was established by Quickmart towards Mr.
Singhania also resulting in educational loss to Mr. Singhania.

Further in this case, when Mr. Singhania contacted to company‘s office and enquired, the OP
stated that they are the one outsourcing the product from retailers as agent and they had nothing
to do regarding this matter. Mr. Singhania went to the retailer‘s office and the agent Mr. Rattan
who responded Mr. Singhania not being his customer and ensure delivery of what was demanded
which puts out that lack of standard service was present from both the side, Quickmart and Agent
Mr. Rattan, and it was a state of mental agony for the petitioner, moving from one place to
another that too at the time of the pandemic in union of Aryavarta.
 Lochgelly Iron & Coal co. v. McMullan, 193412 AC 1; LORD WRIGHT said, negligence
means more than headless or careless conduct; it properly connotes the complex concept of duty,
breach and damage thereby suffered by the person to whom the duty was owing.

Madras High Court ruled the case of Halligua v Mohansundarum 13 and held that the body
was regulated by the nervous system and even if there was no physical harm done to the party,
the nervous could be harmed and compensated.

MASTER CHIRAG V. STAR HEALTH AND ALLIED INSURANCE CO.14 the petitioner
was entitled to compensation for mental agony and harassment and also litigation expenses.
After going through the facts of the case and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the State
Commission is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to receive an amount of
Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.2,000/- as litigation
expenses.

The counsel, thus humbly puts forth that under such circumstances, where there has been
negligence with Mr. Singhania and also he had to pass through the state of mental harassment on
top of the pandemic, he should be entitled to damages.

12
[1933] UKHL 4
13
AIR 1951 Mad 1056
14
First Appeal No.1588 of 2017
IV. WHETHER OR NOT THE ACT OF FRAUDULENT WAS COMMITTED BY MR.
RATTAN?

The counsel on the behalf of petitioner humbly submits before the hon‘ble sub- divisional court
of union of Aryavarta. That the retailer, Mr. Rattan was fraudulent.

Here ,when Mr. Singhania could not find any other option ,he opened the product and was
disheartened to find that the laptop was a defective one which in itself is a default of delivering
faulty goods and does not fulfill the subject matter of the contract performed by the OP. Then
Mr. Singhania calls the service centre where he was informed that the warranty of the product
has to be provided by the company so, Mr. Singhanias went back to the Quickmart website and
found that his details regarding buying of the laptop was totally erased by the company. He was
disappointed and stressed with the happenings continuing with him.

Further in this case, Mr. Singhania contacted the retailer and narrated the whole story with
the intention to file the suit against company. Where as Mr. Rattan in return reassured the him by
providing written acknowledgment on the letter pad of the company admitting that such laptop
will be replaced within 10 days and even after a month there was no solution provide to Mr.
Singhania by Mr. Rattan. The council will like to humbly submit that here in this instant matter
Mr. Rattan was fraudulent, he promised Mr. Singhanias without any intention of performing it.

Section 17 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 states-

17. ‗Fraud‘ defined—‗Fraud‘ means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party
to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agents, with intent to deceive another party
thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:— —‗Fraud‘ means and includes
any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his
agents, with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the
contract"15

(1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;

(2) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;

15
section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
(3) a promise made without any intention of performing it;

(4) any other act fitted to deceive;

(5) any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent. Explanation.—Mere
silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud,
unless the circumstances of the case are such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the
person keeping silence to speak to, or unless his silence, is, in itself, equivalent to speech.

In Jewson & Sons Ltd v Arcos Ltd16, giving a false impression and inducing a person to act upon
it, was considered fraud, even if each fact taken by itself would be literally true.

Indranath Banerjee v Rooke17.In Firbank’s Executors v Humphreys18, the damages for

fraudulent misrepresentation, under the general rule, were arrived at by considering the difference
in the position the plaintiff would have been in, had the representation been true and in the
position he is actually in, in consequence of it‘s being true.

The counsel thus humbly put forth that under such circumstances Mr. Singhania, the petitioner
had to go through a lot of stress and Mr. Rattan owing to him he should be entitled to damages.

In this instant case, the council would like to state keeping in mind the saying ―JUSTICE
DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED” and it should be considered that further delay in institution
of case would lead to miscarriage of justice and as such, quick remedy should be sought for the
case. Thus, keeping all these facts in mind, the case should be decided in favor of the Petitioner.

16
(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 93
17
3 Ind Cas 316
18
CA 1886
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS STATED, ISSUES RAISED,

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED, REASONS GIVEN AND AUTHORITIES CITED,
THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:

DECLARE THAT THE COMPANY IS LIABLE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND

NEGLIGENCE.

DECLARE THAT QUICKMART SHOULD BE LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION FOR

THE PARAMOUNT OF THE LAPTOP.

DECLARE THAT THE COST OF LITIGATION AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,000/- TO BE

COMPENSATED BY QUICKMART AND MR. RATTAN JOINTLY.

AND/OR

PASS ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE

INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIOUS FOR
WHICH THE COUNSELS SHALL FOREVER PRAY.

COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER