Applicant Memorial Final

Page i o f  xxi

IN THE HON’BLE CIVIL COURT OF MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

Between Ms. Kalyani Tekriwal

...Plaintiff 

V. 1.Pankaj Electronics,

…Defendant no. 1

2. Sony Ericsson Service Centre (Andheri East),

…Defendant no. 2

3. Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication (I)(P) Ltd.

…Defendant no. 3

On submission to the Hon’ble Civil Court At Mumbai

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHAILF OF THE PLAINTIFF

9TH ANNUAL INTRA BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2010 -NLIU BHOPAL-

T able o f  C ont ent s……………………………………………...……………………………...Page ii o f  xxi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………………………………... iii of xi Index of Authorities………………………………………………………………………….……. iv of xi Table of Cases………………………………………………………………………………….. iv of xi Books & Articles……………………………………………………………………….………. v of xi Statutes………………………………………………………………………………………….. v of xi Websites……………………………………………………………………………………..….. v of xi Statement of Jurisdiction………………………………………………………………….………vi of xi Synopsis of Facts……………………………………………………………………………..…… viii of xi Issues Raised……………………………………………………………………………………... ix of xi Summary of Arguments…………………………………………………………….……………. x of xi Arguments Advanced………………………………………………………………………….…… 1 of 8 Prayer

M EMORIAL O N B EHALF OF T HE PLAI NT I FF

 List o f  A Abbr eviat ion…………………….……………………………………………………Page iii o f  xxi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AIR

:

All India Reporter

ALL ER

:

All England Reporter

Bom

:

Bombay

Bom LR

:

Bombay Law Reporter

Corp.

:

Corporation

CPC

:

Code of Civil Procedure

CPR

:

Consumer Protection Reporter

Cal

:

Calcutta

Co.

:

Company

Edn.

:

Edition

Govt.

:

Government

Hon’ble

:

Honourable

KAR

:

Karnataka

KB

:

King’s Bench

Ltd

:

Limited

NCDRC

:

National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission

Ors

:

Others

Pvt.

:

Private

QB

:

Queen’s Bench

&

:

and

v.

:

verses

M EMORIAL O N B EHALF OF T HE PLAI NT I FF

 I nd e x o f  A Aut hor it ies………………………………………………………………………….Page iv o f  xxi

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Table of Cases

1.  A. Lakshmanan v. M/s Anjaleem Enterprises & Anr .

(1993) 2 CPR 355

2.  Brook v. bool

[1928] 2 KB 578

3.  Donogue v. Stevenson

[1932] All ER Rep 1

4.  Eastern Mining Contractors (Private) Ltd . v. The Premier Automobiles Limited 

5.  Harmohinder Singh v. Anil Sehgal & Anr 

(1963) 65 BOM LR 183 Revision Petition No. 955 of 1996, NCDRC, New Delhi

6.  Love v. Port of London Authority 7.  Mash & Murrel Ltd  v Joseph Emanuel Ltd 

[1959] 2 Llyod’s Rep 541 [1961] 1 All ER 1189

8. Patel Roadways And Another v.  Manish Chhotalal Thakkar And Ors

9. P. C Rajput v. State Govt. of Madhya Pradesh

ILR 2000 KAR 3286 AIR 1993 MP 107

10. Ranbirsingh Shankarsingh v. Hindustan General  Electric Corporation Ltd 

11. V.J. Acharya v Ratilal Fulchand Shah And Anr .

M EMORIAL O N B EHALF OF T HE PLAI NT I FF

AIR 1971 Bom 97

1 (1985) ACC 186

 I nd e x o f  A Aut hor it ies…………………………………………………………………………….Page v o f  xxi - Books & Articles – A Lakshminath, M Sridhar, Ramaswamy Iyer’s The Law of Torts , (10th edn Lexis Nexis Butterworth 2007) Atiyah P S, An Introduction to the Law of Contract ,(5th edn. Clarendon Press Oxford 1995) st

Chakraborty R, Law of Sales of goods and partnership, (1 edn. Orient Publication2006) th

Cooke John, Law of tort  (7 edn. british library cataloguing-in-publication data 2005) nd

Glannon W Joseph The law of torts , (2 edn. Aspin Law and Business 2000) th

Jones A Micheal, Text book on torts (8 edn. a Oxford university press 2002) th

Majumdar P K, The law of consumer protection in india , (5 edn. Orient Publiting Co. 2006) th

Singh Avtar, Contract and Specific Relief , (10

edn. Eastern Book Co. Lucknow 2008)

- Statutes 1. Sales of goods act, 1930 2. Consumer protection act, 1986 3. Indian Contract Act, 1872 4. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

- Websites -

1. www.advantageconsumer.com 2. www.indiankanoon.org 3. www.lawof contracts.co.uk  4. www.legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com

5. www.ncdrc.nic.in

M EMORIAL O N B EHALF OF T HE PLAI NT I FF

St at ement o f  J  J ur isd ict ion….…………………………………………………………………Page vi o f  xxi

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The plaintiff knocks the door of this hon’ble court and invokes its original civil jurisdiction under the following sections of the CPC, 1908:



9. 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.



15. Court in which suits to be instituted – Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the

lowest grade competent to try it.



20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises –

Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction. (a) The defendants or each of the defendants, at the time of the commencement of the suit actually or voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or

(b) Any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of  the suit actually or voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) The cause of action wholly or partly arises.

M EMORIAL O N B EHALF OF T HE PLAI NT I FF

 Back gr ound o f Par t  ti es & S yno psis o f F act s………………………………………………Page vii o f  xxi

BACKGROUND OF PARTIES

Plaintiff, Ms. Kalyani Tekriwal- resident of 29C Andheri, senior partner at the Law Firm Silver Circle & Associates Defendant No. 1- Mr. Pankaj Siddhique, store owner, Pankaj Electronics (a standalstone multipurpose electronics store) Defendant No. 2- the Sony Ericsson Service Centre, Andheri East, Mumbai Defendant No. 3- the Sony Ericsson Communications (I)(P) Ltd, Delhi

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

1. The plaintiff, Ms. Kalyani Tekriwal (hereafter referred as Ms. Tekriwal) is a resident of  Andheri, and a senior partner at the Law firm Silver Circle and Associates. She has a family history of Premature Heart diseases and diabetes. Apprehensive of being diagnosed with the same, she regularly exercised and followed healthy eating habits and had visiting Dr. Gurjar, a resident cardiologist at the Fortis Hospital. th

2. On 25 September 2009, Ms. Tekriwal visits Dr. Gurjar and complains of severe chest pain for the past two months and formation of nodules on her knees and elbows and is diagnose with acute diabetes and very high blood cholesterol and Triglyceride level. She is prescribed medication and adviced to lose 10 kgs by walking for atleast 5 to 6 kms everyday and show her progress after four months. th

3. On 27

September 2009 Ms. Tekriwal went to the shop of Mr. Pankaj Siddhique

(hereafter referred as Mr. Siddhique) with an intention to purchase a pedometer. However Mr. Siddhique persuaded rather convinced her to buy Sony Ericsson W580i mobile phone which had ad additional feature of pedometer and a music player. Being insisted by him, she purchased the same. th

4. From 30 September 2009, Ms. Tekriwal regularly jogged at the Shivaji Park which had a jogging area of 9 kms. She carried the new phone to keep a track of the distance and

M EMORIAL O N B EHALF OF T HE PLAI NT I FF

S yno psis o f F act s……………………………………………………………………………Page viii o f  xxi

would stop after she reached the mark of 5 km. every once a while she felt some slight chest pains. 5. On 25

th

December 2009, Ms. Tekriwal noted some defect in the battery and charging

display of the mobile phone and immediately contacted Mr. Siddhique, who in turn provided her with a simple pedometer as he was aware of her health condition. He told her that repair would take two days. th

6. On 28

December 2009 Ms. Tekriwal realized that the distance she regularly jogged

assuming to be 5 kms according her mobile phone was actually 4 kms. She immediately called the Sony Ericsson Service Customer Care to lodge a complaint but it refused to entertain her complaint. Ms. Tekriwal also reported the defect to Mr. Siddhique. However he labled the defect as manufacturing defect and refused to take the liability for the fault. st

7. On 1 January 2010, Ms. Tekriwal sent a written complaint to the Sony Ericsson Service Centre about the malfunctioning of the pedometer bur there was never any response from them. th

8. On 10

January 2010, Ms. Tekriwal felt severe chest pain and approached Dr. Gurjar

who informed her that her health condition had not improved yet and she had mererly lost 5 kgs. th

9. On 18

January 2010, Ms. Tekriwal suffered from a heart attack and had to go an

emergency bypass surgery costing 4 lakh. 10. Being aggrieved she filed a suit in the Civil Court of Mumbai to seek compensation to the tune of 4 lakh along with other damages.

Hence the present petition before the Hon’ble Civil Court of Mumbai.

M EMORIAL O N B EHALF OF T HE PLAI NT I FF

 I ssues R Raised ………………………………………………………………………………..…Page i x  x o f  xxi

ISSUES RAISED

1. WHETHER

THERE

IS

A

CONTRACT

OF

SALE

BETWEEN

THE

PETITIONER, MS. TEKRIWAL & DEFENDANT NO. 1, MR. SIDDHIQUE?

2. WHETHER THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL BREACH OF CONTRACT ON THE PART OF MR. SIDDHIQUE?

3. WHETHER MR. PANKAJ SIDDHIQUE AND THE SONY ERICSSON SERVICE CENTRE,

ANDHERI,

MUMBAI

ARE

LIABLE

FOR

DEFICIENCY

IN

SERVICE?

4. WHETHER THE SONY ERICSSON COMMUNICATION (I)(P) LTD, DELHI IS LIABLE TO MS. TEKRIWAL? 5. WHETHER

MR.

SIDDHIQUE,

THE

STORE

OWNER

OF

PANKAJ

ELECTRONICS, SONY ERICSSON SERVICE CENTRE (&HERI EAST), MUMBAI, & SONY ERICSSON COMMUNICATIONS (I)(P) LTD, DELHI ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION OF RS. 4 LAKHS ALONG WITH OTHER DAMAGES TO THE PETITIONER, MS. TEKRIWAL?

M EMORIAL O N B EHALF OF T HE PLAI NT I FF

Summar   y o f  A Ar gument s…………………..………………………………..………………..…Page xx o f  xxi

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1.

THERE IS A CONTRACT OF SALE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF, MS. TEKRIWAL & DEFENDANT ONE, MR. SIDDHIQUE.

1.1 That there is a contract of sale between Ms. Tekriwal & Mr. Siddhique under section 5(1) of  the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. 1.2

That there is an implied condition of the quality or fitness of the product purchased under section 16(1).

2.

THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL BREACH OF CONTRACT ON THE PART OF MR. SIDDHIQUE.

2.1

That breach of a major term (condition) of the contract entitles the aggrieved party to sue the offending party for damages arising from breach.

3.

THERE IS DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE ON THE PART OF PANKAJ SIDDHIQUE & THE SONY ERICSSON SERVICE CENTRE, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI.

3.1 That failure of the seller/manufacturer to rectify the defects amounts to deficiency in service. 4.

THE SONY ERICSSON COMMUNICATION (I)(P) LTD, DELHI IS LIABLE TO PAY MS. TEKRIWAL?

4.1 The Sony Ericsson Communication (I)(P) Ltd, Delhi is liable for negligently incorporating defective pedometer in the mobile phone. 4.2

The Sony Ericsson Communication (I)(P) Ltd, Delhi is vicariously liable for the acts of its Service Centre, the Sony Ericsson Service Centre, Andheri East, Mumbai.

M EMORIAL O N B EHALF OF T HE PLAI NT I FF

Summar   y o f  A Ar gument s…………………..………………………………..……………..…Page xxi o f  xxi

5.

MR. SIDDHIQUE, THE STORE OWNER OF PANKAJ ELECTRONICS, SONY ERICSSON SERVICE CENTRE (&HERI EAST), MUMBAI, & SONY ERICSSON COMMUNICATIONS (I)(P) LTD, DELHI ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION OF RS. 4 LAKHS ALONG WITH OTHER DAMAGES TO THE PETITIONER, MS. TEKRIWAL.

5.1

That Mr. Pankaj Siddhique & the Sony Ericsson service center (andheri) Mumbai are liable for not carrying out the terms of warranty.

5.2

That Mr. Pankaj Siddhique & the Sony Ericsson service center (andheri) Mumbai are liable for the deficiency in service.

5.3

That the Sony Ericson Mobile Communications (I)(P)Ltd, Delhi is liable for negligently incorporating defective pedometer in the mobile phone and for the acts of the Sony Ericsson Service Centre, Andheri East, Mumbai

M EMORIAL O N B EHALF OF T HE PLAI NT I FF

 Ar gument s A Ad vanced …………………………………………………………………………...Page 1 o f 7 

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 1.

WHETHER THERE IS A CONTRACT OF SALE BETWEEN MS. TEKRIWAL & MR. PANKAJ SIDDHIQUE?

1.1. There is a contract of sale of the Sony Ericsson W580i mobile phone.

1.1.1 The plaintiffs most reverentially submitted that a contract of sale of goods is a contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a price.

1

1.1.2 It is further submitted that in the instant case defendant no. 1 agreed to transfer or sell the W580i phone to plaintiff for a price of Rs. 25000.

1.1.3 It is therefore most respectfully submitted that in the light of above stated facts and circumstances it is clear that there exists a contract of sale between the plaintiff & defendant no. 1.

1.2

That there is an implied condition of the quality or fitness of the product purchased under section 16(1).

1.2.1 It is humbly submitted that Where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller’s skill or judgement, & the goods are of a description which it is in the course of the seller’s business to supply (whether he is the manufacturer or producer ______________________ 1. Section 4 (1), Sale of Goods Act, 1930: A contract of sale of goods is a contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a price. There may be a contract of sale between one partowner and another.

M EMORIAL O N B EHALF OF T HE PLAI NT I FF

 Ar gument s A Ad vanced …………………………………………………………………………...Page 2 o f 7 

or not), there is an implied condition that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such 2

purpose . 1.2.2 The implied condition only applies to defects not reasonably discoverable to the buyer on such examination as he made or could make a thing is sold by description, though it is specific, so long as it is sold not merely as the specific thing but as a thing corresponding to 3

a description . 4 1.2.2 It has been held in  Mash & Murrel Ltd  v Joseph Emanuel Ltd  that “[I]f the particular 

  purpose is made known by the buyer to the seller,….that in itself  sufficient to raise the  presumption that the buyer relies on the skill & judgment of the seller.” Further if the good

is not of that quality & if it is not fit for such purpose, then the law implies a promise from the vendor that he will supply to the purchaser an article of that quality & reasonably fit for 5

that purpose for which it is required . It is respectfully submitted that Ms. Tekriwal went to Pankaj Electronics with the intention to purchase a pedometer. By this she expressly made him known the purpose of her buying as pedometer is used for nothing else but for estimating the distance travelled on foot. Further based upon the recommendations of Mr. Siddhique and relying upon him. Ms. Tekriwal considered the phone as a good bargain & bought the phone for Rs 25,000/By such description there arose an implied condition that the good shall be fit for the required purpose. ______________________ 2. Section 16, Sale of Goods Act, 1930: Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any other law for the time being in force, there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale, excepts as follows:(1) Where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller’s skill or judgement, and the goods are of a description which it is in the course of the seller’s business to supply (whether he is the manufacturer or producer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose. 3.  Eastern Mining Contractors (Private) Ltd . v. The Premier Automobiles Limited  (1963) 65 BOM LR 183 4.

[1961] 1 All ER 485, at 1189

5.  Ranbirsingh Shankarsingh v. Hindustan General Electric Corporation Ltd , AIR 1971 Bom 97

M EMORIAL O N B EHALF OF T HE PLAI NT I FF

 Ar gument s A Ad vanced …………………………………………………………………………...Page 3 o f 7 

2.

WHETHER THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL BREACH OF CONTRACT ON THE PART OF MR. SIDDHIQUE?

2.1

It is humbly put forward that “every contract contains a ‘core’ or fundamental obligation which must be performed. If one party fails to perform this obligation, he will be guilty of a breach of the obligation….” The breach of contract is the deviation from the main purpose of the contract. A breach of a contract which goes to root of the contract or which conflicts with its main purpose, is a deviation from, or a repudiation or fundamental breach, of such contract….[T]his expression is no more than a convenient shorthand expression for saying that a particular breach or breaches of contract by one party is or are such as to go to the root of the contract which entitles the other party to treat such breach or breaches as a repudiation of the whole contract and sue for damages.

6

2.2 The counsel for plaintiff humbly submits before the Hon’ble Civil Court of Mumbai that the sole purpose of buying the Sony Ericsson W580i mobile phone was that it had an in-built feature of a pedometer, which could be used by Ms. Tekriwal while jogging. Hence the correct functioning of pedometer formed the core and fundamental term of the contract. Furthermore the pedometer in the phone was not accurate and showed only four kilometers for five kilometers. 2.3 The very inaccuracy of the pedometer and denial to take liability resulted in  fundamental breach of contract on the part of Mr. Siddhique.

______________________ 6. P. C Rajput  v. State Govt. of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1993 MP 107

M EMORIAL O N B EHALF OF T HE PLAI NT I FF

the

 Ar gument s A Ad vanced …………………………………………………………………………...Page 4 o f 7 

3.

WHETHER MR. PANKAJ SIDDHIQUE & THE SONY ERICSSON SERVICE CENTRE ARE LIABLE FOR DEFICIENCY IN SREVICE?

3.1

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature & manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.

7

3.1.1 It is humbly put forth that when the malfunctioning of the machinery is during the period of  warranty, failure of the seller/manufacturer to rectify the defect amounts to deficiency in 8

service . Where the sale of machinery carries with it a warranty, the seller is bound to maintain it in a proper working order during the period of warranty.

9

3.1.2The dealer cannot avoid his liability simply on the ground that he was not the manufacturer. It was his responsibility to carry out the terms of the warranty & in turn he may involve the 10

manufacturer in fulfilling their obligations under the warranty . st

3.1.3 The written complaint sent by Ms. Tekriwal on 1 January to the Sony Ericson Customer Care was not entertained also Mr. Sidhhique refused to take any liability for the fault & failure to carry out the terms of warranty. 3.1.4 It is therefore submitted that Mr. Pankaj Siddhique & the Sony Ericsson Service Centre are liable for deficiency in service.

______________________ 7. Section 2 (g), The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 8. A. Lakshmanan v. M/s Anjaleem Enterprises & Anr . (1993) 2 CPR 355 9. Ibid 8 10. Harmohinder Singh v. Anil Sehgal & Anr  Revision Petition No. 955 of 1996, NCDRC, New Delhi

M EMORIAL O N B EHALF OF T HE PLAI NT I FF

 Ar gument s A Ad vanced …………………………………………………………………………...Page 5 o f 7 

4.

WHETHER THE SONY ERICSSON COMMUNICATION (I)(P) LTD, DELHI IS LIABLE TO MS.TEKRIWAL?

4.1 The Sony Ericsson Communications (I) (P) Ltd is liable under negligence for incorporating a defective pedometer in the mobile phone.

4.1.1 It is most reverentially submitted that cause of action in negligence arises if there is a breach of duty of care committed by the defendant and such breach causes damage to the plaintiff. A person is required to meet the standard of care where he has obligation or a duty to be careful. The standard of care is that of a reasonable man or of ordinary prudent man. [T]he manufacturer or indeed the repairer of any article apart entirely from contract owes a duty of care to any person by whom the article is lawfully used to see that it has 11

been carefully constructed . 4.1.1.1 The Sony Ericsson Communications (I) (P) Ltd owed a duty of care to Ms Tekriwal being its customer/consumer and with the imprecision of pedometer instated in the phone sold to her there has been a breach of that duty. 12 4.1.2.1 It is humbly put forth that the defendant must take his victim as he finds him . The

maxim is used to describe the notion that where the claimant is suffering from a latent or psychological predisposition to a particular injury or illness which the harm inflicted by the defendant triggers off, the defendant is responsible for the additional, unforeseeable 13

damage that his negligence is produced. In  Love v. Port of London Authority

the court

held that the defendants must take the plaintiff as they find him, that is to say, with his already vulnerable personality. 4.1.2.2 The counsel would like to submit that Ms. Tekriwal was suffering from acute diabetes and high cholesterol together with these she had a family history of Heart attack, the error in the pedometer exacerbated her illness and resulted in a heart attack. ______________________ 11. Donogue v. Stevenson [1932] All ER Rep 1 12. Thin skull or egg-shell skull principle 13. [1959] 2 Llyod’s Rep 541

M EMORIAL O N B EHALF OF T HE PLAI NT I FF

 Ar gument s A Ad vanced …………………………………………………………………………...Page 7 o f 7 

4.1.3 Hence in the light of above stated facts the Sony Ericsson Communications (I) (P) Ltd is liable under negligence for incorporating a defective pedometer in the mobile phone. 4.2

The Sony Ericsson Communications (I)(P) Ltd, Delhi is vicariously liable for the acts of the Sony Ericsson Service Centre, Andheri East, Mumbai.

4.2.1 Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that assigns liability for an injury to a person who did not cause the injury but who has a particular legal relationship to the person who did act negligently. the principle behind vicarious liability is to put the responsibility on the person ’who ought in justice to bear it’

14

The rationale behind vicarious liability is respondeat

superior i.e. let the master respond. It is a device to provide a “deep pocket” defendant

able to pay the plaintiff’s damages. 4.2.2 It is humbly put forth that the manufacturing company, the Sony Ericsson Communications (I)(P) Ltd, Delhi is an apex body which controls the functions and activities of its subbranches, the Sony Ericsson Service Centre being one of them. Hence it is accountable for every activity or function of its branches which are authorized and done during the course of the employment. 4.2.3 In the light of the circumstances of the case, it is reverentially submitted to the Court that the Sony Ericsson Communications (I) (P) Ltd, Delhi is vicariously liable for the acts of  Sony Ericsson Service Centre, Andheri East, Mumbai.

5.

WHETHER

MR.

SIDDHIQUE,

THE

STORE

OWNER

OF

PANKAJ

ELECTRONICS, SONY ERICSSON SERVICE CENTRE (ANDHERI EAST), MUMBAI, & SONY ERICSSON COMMUNICATIONS (I)(P) LTD, DELHI ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION OF RS. 4 LAKHS ALONG WITH OTHER DAMAGES TO THE PLAINTIFF, MS. TEKRIWAL?

______________________ 14. V.J. Acharya v Ratilal Fulchand Shah And Anr . 1 (1985) ACC 186.

M EMORIAL O N B EHALF OF T HE PLAI NT I FF

 Ar gument s A Ad vanced …………………………………………………………………………...Page 7 o f 7 

5.1 It is to humbly submit that where the same damage is attributable to the conductor two or more tortfeasors and if they all have participated in the same act leading to that damage they are called joint tortfeasors on the other hand two or more tortfeasors are severely liable 15

if different acts of theirs lead to the same damage .

5.1.1 Where two or more persons are so engaged and damage results from the wrongful act of  any one of them, that act is joint tort and all of them are responsible for it as joint torfeasors. Further their respective shares in the commission of the tort are done in the 16

furtherance of a common design . 5.2 In the light of the given facts, issues raised and arguments put forth, it is most reverentially submitted that the Defendants, Mr. Pankaj Siddhique, the Sony Ericsson Service Centre, Andheri East, Mumbai and the Sony Ericsson Communication (I)(P) Ltd are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to Ms. Tekriwal to the tune of Four Lakh Rupees as their concurrent acts brought about the harm to the plaintiff. 5.3

Mr. Pankaj Siddhique is liable to Ms. Tekriwal for the fundamental breach of contract and not carrying out the terms of warranty, hence deficiency in service.

5.4 The Sony Ericsson Service Centre, Andheri East, Mumbai is liable to Ms. Tekriwal for Deficiency in service. 5.5 The Sony Ericsson Communications (I)(P) Ltd, Delhi is responsible for negligently Incorporating defective pedometer in the Sony Ericsson W580i mobile phone and vicariously liable for the act of the Sony Ericsson Service Centre, Andheri East, Mumbai.

______________________ 15. Patel Roadways And Another  v. Manish Chhotalal Thakkar & Ors ILR 2000 KAR 3286 16. Brook  v. bool [1928] 2 KB 578

M EMORIAL O N B EHALF OF T HE PLAI NT I FF

Pr a yer …………………………………………………………………………………………………………

PRAYER

W her e f or e, in the light of the f acts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and

authorities cited, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased: 

To hold Mr. Pank a j Siddhique, the owner of  Pank a j Electronics, the Sony Ericsson Service Centre, Andheri East, Mumbai and the Sony Ericsson Co mmunicat ions (I)(P) Ltd jo jo intly and severally liable to Ms. Tek riwal.



To award compensat ion to the tune of  f our lak h f or the medical charges and alo ng wit h the compensat ion f or the agony suf f  fe  red by the plaint if f  f,  Ms. Tek riwal.

 And  any other relief  that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant in the interests of 

 just ice,equit y and good conscience. AND FOR THIS THE PLAINTIFF SHALL FOREVER PRAY.

COUNSELS FOR THE PLAINTIFF

M EMORIAL O N B EHALF OF T HE PLAI NT I FF