Page |1

TEAM CODE: 6

1st CAPACITY BUILDING MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022

BEFORE THE HON’BLE CIVIL COURT OF BANGALORE UNDER SECTION 9 OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 IN THE MATTER OF
APPEAL NO. 2022

ANCHAL (PETITIONER)

VS.

DDU INC COMPANY (RESPONDENT)

FOR THE KIND ATTENTION OF THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION OF THE CIVIL
COURT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

[Type text]
 Page |2

Table of Contents

I. LIST OF ABBREVATIONS………………………………………………………………….…3

II. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………. ….4

• Case Laws…………………………………………………………………………….…….4

• Books……………………………………………………………………………………........5

• Articles……………………………………………………………………………….……...5

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………….…6

IV. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………….…....7

V. STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………………………………………….......8

VI. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………………….9

VII. ARGUMENTS ADVANCE…………………………………………………………………...10

1. Issue 1: Whether plea is maintainable in the Civil Court…………………….................10

2. Issue 2: Whether DDU should be held liable for Negligence and breach of trust...........11

3. Issue 3: Whether Anchal should be held liable for contributory Negligence…………...13

4. Issue 4: Whether DDU is liable to compensate the quantified amount of Rs. 1 crore…17

VIII. PRAYERS………………………………………………………………………………………19

1.

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 Page |3

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

& And
AIR All India Reports
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Sc Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
HC High Court
B’lore Bangalore
Co. Company
TV Television
INC. Incorporation
Neg. Negligence
Ltd. Limited
Pvt. Private
Hon’ble Honorable
i.e., That is

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 Page |4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Case Name Citation

Blyth vs. Birmingham Water Works Co. (1856) 11 Ex Ch 781, 156 ER 1047

Donoghue vs. Stevenson UKHL 100, SC (HL) 31, AC 562, All ER

Rep 1
T.G. Thayumanavar vs. secy P.W.D. Govt. of Tamil Nadu (1997) 2 MLJ 301

Chief Executive Officer, CESCO vs. Prabhati Sahoo RFA NOS. 201 & 279 OF 2009 (Decided on
16.03.2011)
Kehar Singh Nihal Singh vs. Custodian General AIR 1959 P H 58

Shankar Narayan vs. K. Sreedevi AIR 1990 Ker 151

Ramalinga Nadar vs. Narayana Reddiar AIR 1971 Ker 197

Kallu Lal vs. Hemchand AIR 1958 MP 48

Jones vs. Boyce [1816] 1 Stark 493, [1816] EWHC KB J75

Sayers vs. Harlow Urban DC [1958] 1 WLR 623; [1958] 2 All ER 342;
(1958) 122 JP 351; (1958) 102 SJ 419
Morgan vs. Simpson (1975) QB 151; (1974) 3 WLR 517; (1974) 3
All ER 722; 72 LGR 715; (1974) 118 SJ 736

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 Page |5

Books Referred:

• R.K. Bangia, Law of torts, Lexis Nexis Allahabad Law Agency, (24th ed., 2019).

• C.K. Takwani, Civil Procedure with Limitation Act, 1963, EBC Explorer, (8th ed.,
2018).

Websites Referred:

• blog.pleaders.in,

• www.legalservicesindia.com,

• lawteacher.net,

• www.lawctopus.com,

• indiankanoon.org,

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 Page |6

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. DDU INC is a registered company under Indian Companies Act 2013 and is engaged in providing
subscription-based internet services streaming through its website and app – DDU TV and
produces movies, television series, and reality shows etc online. In May 2019 the team decided to
come up with a new reality show ‘In the Wild’ and decided to choose 10 people from different
walks of life for a period of 16 weeks.

2. The contestants included actors, models, athletes along with general public and the show was to be
shot at remote secluded sparsely inhabited Island called ‘Paradis’. Anchal an upcoming artist and
the winner of Singing Sensation for the year 2021 was in talks with VMT Inc. an international
music events for a global house tour where she would feature in concerts in several countries in
January 2020 and keep herself free of commitments by end of November 2019. DDU INC
approached Anchal to be a part of show as celebrity participant but she was not very keen on the
project. Later after discussions and deliberations she agreed to be a part of show even after VMT
Inc. expressed their displeasure at her decision but she ignored and went ahead with ‘In the Wild’.

3. The shooting began on 1st July 19 at Paradis. In less than two weeks she developed rashes,
swelling, pain and itching of her skin along with fever and it took medical team some time to
arrive because of location. Anchal was diagnosed with bacterial infection. They were amazed as
the rooms were not fumigated to avoid risks.

4. Anchal was shifted to hospital for few days and developed acute laryngitis and was unable to
speak coherently. She was devastated as she had to cancel her global tour and forfeit her dream of
making it global. After getting discharged she filed a suit against DDU before Civil Court,
Bangalore for negligence. She stated that DDU owed a duty of care towards her as she was under
their care and custody during the Paradis. The act of DDU was not taking adequate precaution and
safeguards are a clear case of breach of duty. This resulted in a huge loss to Anchal and she
quantified Rs. 1 crore. She computed the same on the following heads:
a. Medical expenses: Rs. 10 Lakhs
b. Loss of revenue on the account of cancellation of tour: Rs. 50 Lakhs
c. Loss of income: Rs. 15 Lakhs
d. Pain and suffering: Rs. 25 Lakhs

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 Page |7

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The plea is maintainable in this court under section 9 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 which explicates
the jurisdiction of civil courts in India.
The Section reads “subject to provisions herein contained courts shall have the jurisdiction to adjudicate
on all suits of a civil nature barring those the cognizance of which are impliedly or expressly barred.”

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 Page |8

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE PLEA IS MAINTAIBLE IN THIS COURT?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER DDU SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR NEGLIGIENCE AND BREACH OF TRUST?

ISSUE 3

WHETHER ANCHAL SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGIENCE?

ISSUE 4

WHETHER DDU IS HELD LIABLE TO COMPENSATE THE QUANTIFIED AMOUNT OF Rs 1

CRORE?

SUB ISSUE

WHETHER DEFENSE OF VIJ MAJOR IS AVAILABLE?

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 Page |9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE PLEA IS MAINTAIBLE IN THIS COURT?

This plea is maintainable under section 9 of CPC, 1908 which explicates the jurisdiction of civil courts in
India. The Section reads “subject to provisions herein contained courts shall have the jurisdiction to
adjudicate on all suits of a civil nature barring those the cognizance of which are impliedly or expressly
barred.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER DDU SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR NEGLIGIENCE AND BREACH OF
TRUST?

DDU will be held accountable for negligence and breach of trust because the corporation owes all
contestants a duty of care and that duty was broken by their own negligence. Due to the same, the
company is responsible for its negligence. Plaintiff suffered because of their negligence, both financially
and psychologically.

ISSUE 3: WHETHER ANCHAL SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGIENCE?

Anchal won’t be held accountable for contributory negligence because there was no negligence on her
part; rather the situation that led to her infection was unexpected and unforeseen, and she had no chance
to behave reasonably. There was no negligence on the part of plaintiff; it was duty of DDU Company to
maintain suitable healthcare facilities.

ISSUE 4: WHETHER DDU IS HELD LIABLE TO COMPENSATE THE QUANTIFIED AMOUNT

OF Rs 1 CRORE?

DDU is obligated to make up the specified amount as it is made abundantly obvious that Anchal suffered
a significant loss as a result of defendant’s negligence and violation of duty of care. The claim of Vis
major cannot be upheld since the defendant was negligent is not having rooms fumigated and making sure
there was medical services available at the time of accident happened, not because of natural cause.

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 P a g e | 10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCE

Issues 1: Is the plea maintainable in the civil court

The plea is maintainable in the civil court under section 9 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 which explicates
the jurisdiction of civil courts in India. The Section reads “subject to provisions herein contained courts
shall have the jurisdiction to adjudicate on all suits of a civil nature barring those the cognizance of which
are impliedly or expressly barred.” It is quite clear that section 9 of C.P.C “covers the jurisdiction of the
court” there are two prerequisites.
The first prerequisite is there must a proper cause of action to initiate the suit and the second prerequisite
is there must an inherent right of the plaintiff towards the defendant. There are statutory provisions who
govern whom to appeal and whom not to appeal. The principles that are applied are clearly laid down by
the Supreme Court.
A civil suit has not been defined in any Act. Any suit of a non-criminal nature which ratifies or
determines civil rights can be termed as a civil suit. The Supreme Court enunciated on the definition of a
civil proceeding in Kehar Sinha Nihal Singh v. Custodian General1 as an approbation of private rights to
corporations or human beings. The reward or retrieval of private property is the objective of a civil action.
A civil action may, in other words, be defined as “a legal proceeding between two parties for the
redressal, determination or implementation of private rights”. The private rights and obligations of
citizens are covered under the expression “suit of civil nature.” A civil suit shall not adjudicate on a
political or religious question2.
In the case of Shankar Narayanan v. K. Sreedevi3, the Apex Court observed that Civil Court has primary
jurisdiction in all types of civil matters as per Section 9 of CPC unless the action is expressly or impliedly
barred. The decision implied that a civil court’s jurisdiction can be ousted by the legislature by amending
or adding a provision to the Act in itself. The provision hereinafter contained in the present case does not
fall under any implied or expressed legislation whereby, it has been barred by the legislation to try in the
civil court under section 9 of CPC4.

1
AIR 1959 P H 58
2
https://www.lawyerservices.in/Kehar-Singh-Nihal-Singh-Versus-Custodian-General-Evacuee-Property-1958-11-05 (last
visited on July, 24, 2022)
3
AIR 1990 P H Ker 151
4
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1073240/ ( last visited on July, 25, 2022)

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 P a g e | 11

Issue 2: Will DDU will be liable for negligence and breach of trust

1. DDU is liable for the act of negligence

DDU was negligent on their part of action they owed a duty of care towards the petitioner. The defendant
failed to do their act so the petitioner suffered losses and damages. According to Winfield and Jolowicz,
Negligence is the breach of a legal duty of care by the plaintiff which results in undesired damage to the
plaintiff. In Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Co5, Negligence was defined as the omission to do
something which a reasonable man would do or doing something which a prudent or reasonable man
would not do.

1.1 Duty of Care towards the plaintiff

There exists a duty of care which is not moral but legal in nature which presupposes that the defendant
owed a specific legal duty towards the plaintiff. The duty of care must be standard and not something
arbitrary and anonymous in nature. The care should be of that extent what a prudent man should have
reasonably taken care of. In the instant case, whereby the DDU took up the idea of creating the show “In
the Wild”, an implied duty arose towards each and every contestant by the defendant company to take
proper care of their participants till the time they were residing and taking part in ten shows.

A duty, generally, arises when the law recognizes a relationship between the defendant and the petitioner
requiring the defendant to act in a certain manner. In the adjacent case the DDU owed a duty of care
towards the petitioner as there was a relationship that was created between the participants of the show
and the company, who vehemently violated its duty of care by acting in a negligent and reckless manner.

In the landmark judgment of Donoghue v. Stevenson6the duty of care was established and Lord Atkins
evolved the neighbor principle and extended the tort of negligence beyond the tort feasor and the
immediate party whoever got affected due to the negligence act can file the suit.

5
(1856) 11 Ex Ch 781, 156 ER 1047
6
UKHL 100, SC (HL) 31, AC 562, ALL ER Rep 1

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 P a g e | 12

1.2 Breach of Duty of Care

It is not enough for a person to prove that defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff. The
personal injury must also prove that the negligent party breached their duty to the other person towards
whom he owed a basic duty of care. In order to be guilty of negligence, the defendant apart of having a
duty of care towards the plaintiff must also have failed to exercise such duty or parallelly have breached
the duty of care. DDU breached the duty of care towards the petitioner who consequently suffered from
the bacterial infection because the rooms were not fumigated through which the bacteria got spread and
thereby Anchal got bacterial infection.

The late arrival of medical team added to the negligent act of the defendant who could have made the
medical arrangement smoother by making the doctors team available at the place of the shoot since the
knowledge of the island being remote and adequate and the non-availability of basic medical facility
would lack was very well known to the defendants. Despite knowing the fact there was no medical team
available at one call which could have to certain extent prevents the deterioration of Anchal’s health.
They were careless and ignored the fact that Paradis is an island where there is a chance of bacterial
infection and they were responsible for taking care of health’s of all the contestants present there.

In T.G. Thayumanavar v secy P.W.D. Govt of Tamil Nadu7, an overhead electric wire running across a
road snapped and fell on a cyclist going on the road, who died on the spot due to electrocution. It was
found that the incident occurred due to the negligence of electricity board. Snapping of electric wire is not
due to act of God. The respondent was held liable to pay compensation for the same. In the similar
instance DDU plea for the vis major and was negligent on the act.

1.3 Damage suffered

For holding any person liable for the act of negligence, it is also necessary that the plaintiff must prove
that there has been some loss or injury being suffered. Usually where there is a claim for damages being
asked by plaintiff, onus of proves will lie over the plaintiff to prove before the court of law that there has
been damage suffered by him due to the act of the defendant.

7
(1997) 2 MLJ 301

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 P a g e | 13

Therefore generally, the plaintiff has to prove that he has suffered some loss or damage due to the
negligent act of the defendant. The presumption that the wrongful act can’t happen unless the defendant is
negligent, is based on the maxim ‘Res Ipsa Loquitur’ which means ‘the thing speaks for itself’. In the
current case the defendant suffered from mental damages as well physical damages. Due to the negligent
act of defendant the petitioner wasn’t able to perform for the global music house due to which she
suffered damaged in her career and also loss of income, paining and suffering.

In Chief Executive Officer, CESCO vs. Prabhati Sahoo8 the case, there was a death happened because of
the electrocution of live wire conductor hanging at the lower height. The deceased person came in contact
with it and hence died. There was nothing to show that the supply of electricity was totally cut off.
Moreover, it was also revealed that the supply of electricity was supplied only to one of the consumers. It
was held that the accident could have happened without negligence of the defendant, and hence the
maxim of Res Ipsa Loquitur was successfully applied and compensation was granted to the deceased
representative.

2. DDU will be liable for the breach of trust

Breach of trust takes place when if the person omits to perform any duty assigned to him. Here the
defendant (DDU) owed a duty and it was omitted. The defendant owed a duty that to provide proper
facilities and accommodation the rooms were not fumigated due to which the petitioner suffered from
bacterial infection.

Issue 3: Whether Anchal is liable for contributory negligence?

1. Anchal not being liable for contributory negligence

Negligence is a type of tort which means a breach of duty (duty to take care) by one person which causes
damages to another person. It is an act of carelessness and ignorance on the part of the defendant which
he is obligated to perform which a rational and prudent man would not do. The degree of care depends

8
RFA NOS 201 & 279 OF 2009 (Decided on 16.03.2011)

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 P a g e | 14

upon the gravity of injury an act possesses. If an act in which any kind of omission or ignorance is likely
to cause injury to a greater extent more care is required and if the danger is slight less care is required9.

Contributory negligence basically means when the plaintiff by his own want of care contributes to the
damage caused by the negligence or wrongful conduct of the defendant, he is considered to be guilty of
contributory negligence. When there is an accident due to negligence of both parties, substantially there
would be contributory negligence and both would be blamed. In the case of contributory negligence, the
crucial question on which liability depends would be whether either party could by exercise of reasonable
care, have avoided the consequence of other’s negligence.

Since the condition of getting infected was unexpected and unforeseen and Anchal was unable to take
action, there was no contributory negligence on her part in the current instance. The defendant had an
implied duty of care and trust to the plaintiff to maintain appropriate medical facilities, and the defendant
violated that duty. Anchal is not liable for contributory negligence because it only applies to a plaintiff's
behavior and there was no unforeseeable circumstance that led to the negligence.

1.1 Defense of contributory negligence not available.

When it is not necessary for the plaintiff to take due care, the defendant is legally obligated to perform
such duty of care failure of which will result in the liability of negligence for the defendant. The second
situation is when the defendant has time to recourse and takes reasonable measures in order to avoid an
accident. The third situation is when a defendant will not get the defense of contributory negligence when
he creates a situation under which the plaintiff gets reasonable apprehension of imminent threat or menace
to his life and in order to escape such danger he acted rationally and avoided due care of diligence.

Anchal was dissatisfied with the accommodations' amenities. She didn't owe the defendant a duty of care
because she was merely a participant and staying on the island for the work assigned by the DDU
company, and it is their responsibility to provide participants with the necessary facilities and medical
care. However, she chose to remain silent because she knew that any complaints, she voiced about the
location would paint her in a poor light. In such a circumstance, DDU was required to carry out a duty,
which was to ensure availability of a medical team in case any problems happen. Since pre-medical care

9
https://blog.ipleaders.in/contributory-negligence/ ( last visited on July, 24, 2022)

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 P a g e | 15

was unavailable on the island and it took a long time for medical teams to arrive when Anchal became ill.
As a result, DDU was required to fulfill a responsibility by ensuring the availability of a medical team in
case of an event, but they neglected to carry it out.

1.2 Doctrine of Alternative Danger

The plaintiff is supposed to be careful in spite of the defendant’s negligence; there may be certain
circumstances when the plaintiff is justified in taking some risk where some dangerous situation has been
created by the defendant. The plaintiff might become perplexed or nervous by a dangerous situation
created by the defendant and to save his person or property, or sometimes to save third part from such
danger, he may take an alternative risk. The law, therefore, permits the plaintiff to encounter an
alternative reason to save him from the danger created by the defendant.

Anchal, an aspiring singer, participated in the reality competition "in the wild" by DDU to improve her
image. She decided to keep quiet because she feared that if she voiced her displeasure with the
accommodation, she might be in the bad eyes of everyone and lost bigger opportunities in the future. She
was also unaware that she would contract the infection if she remained silent because the situation was
unexpected and unforeseen. Hence, the defense of alternative danger can be used to support Anchal’s
position by arguing that although she chose to stay silent to protect her reputation, the circumstances
made it difficult for her to anticipate the possibility of becoming infected.

In Jones v Boyce10It is up for the jury to decide whether the plaintiff’s action was unreasonable or
reasonable and one that a prudent mind would have adopted. The plaintiff’s act is reasonable so long as he
was placed in such a situation as to have to choose between the dangerous leap and remaining at certain
peril11.

In Sayers v Harlow12In determining the remoteness of the damage, the court needs to balance the risks
taken by the plaintiff against the consequences of the defendants’ breach of duty. The plaintiff did not
take a risk that was disproportionate to the necessities of her situation. Therefore, the injury that the
plaintiff sustained was not too remote from the negligent act of the local authority. However, on the facts,

10
(1816) 1 Stark 493, (1816) EWHC KB J75
11
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/jones-v-boyce.php (last visited on July, 24, 2022)
12
(1958) 1 WLR 623; (1958) 2 ALL ER 342; (1958) 122 JP 351; (1958) 102 SJ 419

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 P a g e | 16

the plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence, as having realized that she could not climb over the door,
she should have appreciated that she could not rely entirely on the toilet roll holder to support her weight.
Hence, she was 25 per cent to blame for the accident13.

1.3 Res Ipsa Loquitur

It is a Latin phrase that means the thing speaks for itself. In the law of torts, it is a very popular doctrine.
In cases, where the evidence is itself sufficient to prove the guilt of the defendant, the maxim is used
there. So, the maxim points out any circumstantial evidence or an object which itself shows that an act has
been committed. It shows that if the defendant was not negligent, the accident would not have happened.

The maxim of Res Ipsa Loquitur applies in situations like the cause of the accident was under the
management or control of the defendant. The accident is such as in the ordinary course of things and
would not happen if those who have the management use proper care. Res Ipsa Loquitur states that the
event that caused injury to the plaintiff would not have occurred if someone has not acted negligently.
The evidence presented rules out all the possibilities of the fault of the plaintiff or third party. There is a
duty of care of the defendant towards the plaintiff which he breached14.

Due to the defendant's carelessness, it was clear that the situation was in their hands, and as management,
DDU Company had a duty to take reasonable care in arranging for the plaintiff's medical care to prevent
any injuries. The injury would not have happened if the defendant hadn't been careless. Plaintiff was in an
unanticipated scenario since it is assumed that those working at Paradis will be provided with medical
facilities, and since the absence of those facilities led to the injury, the defendant violated his obligation
towards the plaintiff.

In the case of Morgan v. Sim15, the party seeking to recover compensation for damage must make out that
the party against whom he complains was in the wrong. The burden of proof is clearly upon him, and he
must show that the loss is to be attributed to the negligence of the opposite party. If, in the end, he leaves
the case in even scales, and does not satisfy the court that it was occasioned by the negligence or default
of the other party, he cannot succeed. So, when the situations around the thing due to which the damage

13
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/sayers-v-harlow-urban.php (last visited on July, 25, 2022)
14
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4923-the-doctrine-of-res-ipsa-loquitur.html (last visited on July, 24, 2022)
15
(1957) QB 151; (1974) 3 WLR 517; (1974) 3 All ER 722; 72 LGR 715; (1974) 118 SJ 736

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 P a g e | 17

was caused were under the control of defendant and the happening would be such as which is out of
ordinary control of the business.

Issue 4: Is DDU liable to compensate Anchal the quantified amount of Rs. 1 crore
Sub issue: Whether the defense of Vis Major is maintainable

Anchal filed a lawsuit seeking compensation in the amount of Rs. 1 crore, which is divided as
medical costs, lost income, loss of revenue, and pain and suffering. DDU is obligated to pay the compensa
tion because of the company's negligence, which caused Anchal to incur significant losses such as
hospital fees and medical expenses as a result of the infection?
Her global music tour, which included appearances at concerts across various nations, was cancelled as a
result of her inability to speak clearly after contracting the infection. As a rising sensational star, Anchal's
primary sources of income were music and the reality show of DDU "In the Wild" she participated in.
However, after contracting the Paradis infection, she was unable to speak clearly, making singing a
difficult event for her and causing a significant loss in income. And after going through all of these
situations, she experienced a great deal of agony and suffering as she dealt with the medical costs, giving
up her ambition of travelling on a world tour of music, and losing her income.

All of them put together caused Anchal to lose a lot of items due to the DDU Company’s incompetence.
The incident would have been avoided if the business had exercised reasonable care and diligence toward
his competitors. DDU Company was responsible for making sure that medical facilities were available
and maintaining fumigation in the rooms to protect contestants from bacterial infections, which were
common on the island Paradis. However, they neglected to do so and breached their duty of care to the
plaintiff, and their negligence in doing so made them liable for the same. Therefore, Anchal should be
compensated with Rs. 1 crore.

Vis major is defined as a loss that results immediately from a natural cause without the intervention of
the man and could not have been prevented by the exercise of prudence, diligence and care. The plea of
vis major is invalid in this case because there was no natural cause and it could have been prevented but
due to the negligent on the part of defendant it was not and it was clearly stated that the bacterial infection
was common in the Paradis. The proper precautions were not taken care by the defendant and hence the
petitioner suffered damages in the nature of medical expenses, loss of revenue, loss of income, pain and

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 P a g e | 18

suffering.
In Ramalinga Nadar v. Narayan Reddiar16, the unruly mob robbed all the goods transported in the
defendant’s lorry. It cannot be considered to be an Act of God and the defendant, as a common carrier,
will be compensated for all the loss suffered by him.

In Nichols the defendant created an artificial lake on his land by collecting water from natural streams.
Once there was an extraordinary rainfall, heaviest in human memory. The embankments of the lake got
destroyed and washed away all the four bridges belonging to the plaintiff. The court held that the
defendants were not liable as the same was due to the Act of God.

In Kallu Lal v. Hemchand17, the wall of a building collapsed due to normal rainfall of about 2.66 inches.
The incident resulted in the death of the respondent’s children. The court held that the defense of Act of
God cannot be pleaded by the appellants in this case as that much rainfall was normal and something
extraordinary is required to plead this defense. The appellant was held liable18.

16
AIR 1971 Ker 197
17
AIR 1958 MP 48
18
https://lawctopus.com/clatalogue/know-all-about-vis-major-act-of-god/ ( last visited on July, 22, 2022)

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 P a g e | 19

PRAYER

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

1. DDU was negligent and failed to exercise the duty of care and hence committed breach of trust.

2. Anchal was not liable for contributory negligence.

3. Anchal should be compensated with an amount of Rs. 1 crore.

4. Reject the plea of vis major.

And pass any other order, direction, or relief that it may deem fit in the interests of justice, equity and
good conscience.
All of which is most humbly submitted.

S/d-

On Behalf of the Petitioners

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER