He who derives a benefit ought also to bear a burden.
Literally this means that he who enjoys the benefit ought also to bear the burden; he who enjoys the advantage of a right should also take the accompanying disadvantage. In other words, a privilege is subject to its conditions.
‘A’ was allowed by to bring cell phone in the classroom as the class teacher was his relative, however, when he got caught by the principle while inspection, he had to pay a big sum of fine.
Indian Law Position
The principle laid down in the maxim ‘Qui Sentit Commodum, Debet Et Sentire Onus’ is a very well recognized maxim all over the world and hence, is widely applicable in India.
Smt. Phul Kumari Tripathi v. Smt. Bina Devi @ Saraswati Devi
In the above-mentioned case honourable Patna High Court referred to the maxim ‘Qui sentit commodum, debet et sentire onus.’
Fazulbhoy Jaffer v. The Credit Bank of India Ltd
In the above-mentioned case, honourable Bombay High Court referred to the maxim ‘Qui Sentit Commodum, debet et sentire onus’.
S Pine Builders Private Limited v. The Bihar State Credit & Investment Corporation Limited.
The maxim ‘Qui Sentit Commodum, debet et sentire onus’ was also referred to in the above mentioned case by the honourable Patna High Court. 
Edited by Vigneshwar Ramasubramania
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje
 Squire Patton Boggs, Qui sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus, Lexology (July 4, 2019, 8:01PM), https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=25f758a4-403d-44d7-a290-5e6d3e1e7bcc
 Smt. Phul Kumari Tripathi v. Smt. Bina Devi, 2003 (3) BLJR 1782
 Fazulbhoy Jaffer v. The Credit Bank Of India Ltd, (1914) 16 BOMLR 730.
 S Pine Builders Private Limited v. The Bihar State Credit And Investment Corporation Limited, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11381 of 2011