Ratio Decidendi Intra Moot Court Competition 2020

The Honourable Civil Court of DPS Dwarka

In the matter of

Rajeev Kumar.....................................Plaintiff.........................................

Versus

Union of India......................................Defendant......................................

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...............................................................................................1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .........................................................................................2
STATEMENT OF FACTS..............................................................................................3
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………..........................................................................4
PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..6

Team No- 2
Name - Mehardeep Kaur & Janmejay Bakshi
1
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

BCCA Company Act (British Columbia)

Co. Company

Ex Example

Hon’ble Honourable

Ors. Others

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

v. Versus

Team No- 2
Name - Mehardeep Kaur & Janmejay Bakshi
2
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Mr. Rajeev Kumar, a truck driver, used to work in the night shift and travelled from Delhi to
Agra twice a week to make brick deliveries. He runs a family consisting of his daughter,
wife and mother. On the night of 13th July 2019 , Mr. Kumar took the Delhi-Agra bypass
which was damaged due to excessive rainfall. Even though he had been driving within the
permissible speed limit, his truck was Overloaded. Additionally, there was no barricading
or any warning signs. He couldn't see the damaged road which caused the truck to
overturn and led to Mr. Rajeev losing his left leg.

Team No- 2
Name - Mehardeep Kaur & Janmejay Bakshi
3
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

( I ) THE DEFENDANT IS NOT LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE

1. As per (Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, 2007 SCC 41, [2007]
3 S.C.R. 129, at para. 96) an action for negligence requires proof of a duty of care, breach
of the standard of care, compensable damage, and causation. In the instant case, the
defendant i.e. the Union of India should not be held liable for the tort of negligence as
the Defendant had maintained the utmost standard of care keeping the roads in their
perfect condition which was damaged due to excessive rainfall making it out of the
purview of the Defendant thereby making the Defendant not liable for the accident of
Plaintiff due to non-fulfillment of all the essential elements of tort of negligence.

2. As held in Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel (1996 4 SCC 332), negligence as a tort is the
breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man would do
or doing something which a reasonable man would not do.

3. As laid down in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (AIR 2005 SC 3180), the essential
elements of tort of negligence are existence of duty of care, breach of said duty of care
and resulting damage caused due to breach of duty of care.

4. As established in Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum & Ors.,

(1997 9 SCC 552 India). the burden of proof to establish the tort of negligence in the
instant case would lie upon the plaintiff and the defendant cannot be held liable for the
same until it is proved.

5. It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Court that in order to hold the Defendant liable for
the tort of negligence, there must exist a duty of care towards the Plaintiff by the
Defendant. In the instant case, the Defendant did owe a duty of care to the Plaintiff and
discharged the same. Duty of care must always pass the reasonable man test and the
standard of care should be that, which any reasonable man would take.

( II ) THE DEFENDANT CANNOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR COMPENSATION

1. "ACT OF GOD", means not a mere misfortune but something overwhelming. (As per
MARTIN B in Oakley v. Portsmouth Steam Packet Co.,25 LJ Ex.101 ;11 Ex.623)
2. “ACT OF GOD”, is a natural necessity, as wind and storms, which arise from natural
causes, is distinct from ``INEVITABLE ACCIDENT". (As per MANSFIELD in Trent v. Wood, 4
Dough.290)
3. In the instant case, the contributory negligence of Mr. Rajeev Kumar as well as the
unforeseeable weather conditions led to the stated accident. The damage caused to the

Team No- 2
Name - Mehardeep Kaur & Janmejay Bakshi
4
 Delhi-Agra bypass was an “ACT OF GOD”, and thus, the Union of India cannot be held
liable to compensate the injuries attributable to the accident.
4. As the damage caused to the road due to the rain was not anticipated by the Union of
India, thus, it cannot be held guilty for failure to put barricades and warning signs.

( III ) THE PLAINTIFF STANDS GUILTY FOR NEGLIGENCE

1. As per Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak and Ors. (2002) 6
SCC 455. Para 8, the question of contributory negligence arises when there has been
some act or omission on the claimant's part, which has materially contributed to the
damage caused, and is of such a nature that it may properly be described as `negligence'.
Negligence ordinarily means breach of a legal duty to care, but when used in the
expression "contributory negligence", it does not mean breach of any duty. It only means
the failure by a person to use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his
property, so that he becomes blameworthy in part as an author of his own wrong.

2. As stated in Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code: Act endangering life or personal
safety of others—Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human
life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend
to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both.

3. By driving an overloaded truck, Mr. Rajeev Kumar not only put his own life in danger but
also risked the life of other travellers on the bypass and made them prone to accidents.
Due to this contributory negligence, the plaintiff stands liable for the damage caused.

Team No- 2
Name - Mehardeep Kaur & Janmejay Bakshi
5
 PRAYER

In the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most humbly
prayed and implored before the Hon’ble Court, that it may be graciously pleased to adjudge and
declare that:

I. THE CASE FILED BY MR. RAJEEV KUMAR IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

II: THE UNION OF INDIA IS NOT LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE OR ANY SUCH TORT FOR THE
UNFORESEEN ACCIDENT.

III. MR. RAJEEV KUMAR CAN NOT HOLD THE UNION OF INDIA LIABLE FOR ANY
COMPENSATION.

IV. THE COURT MAY ORDER ANY DIRECTIONS AS IT DEEMS FIT.

s/d

Counsels on behalf of Defendant

Team No- 2
Name - Mehardeep Kaur & Janmejay Bakshi
6