TEAM CODE:JUMC307

III JECRC NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

Introduction:

 Good afternoon to the hon’ble bench.

 The counsel seeks permission to address the bench as “your lordship / ladyship “.
 indeed
 The counsel is appearing before the hon’ble court in the matter of “Rajputana State
Electricity Board v. Seema & Ors.” On the behalf of Appellant under Section 96 of the
civil procedural court.

Let the judge know the issue & facts of the case:

 Your lordship there are four main issues involved in the present case.
 The counsel will be dealing with the first and second issue and would be speaking for 5
mins.
 And the co-counsel would be dealing with the 3rd and 4th issue and would speak for 5 mins.
 If your lordship are well-versed with the facts, the counsel seeks permission to proceed
with the pleadings.
 indeed

Facts of the case :

 The fact of the case at hand are as follows:

 In this case, the Appellant are “Rajputana State Electricity Board “ who file an appeal
against the respondent who were wife of roshan (seema) and her children’s because of
Roshan’s death due to the stepped on the suspended snapped live wire which passing through
the fields. And he sustained extensive burns and shocks and became unconscious And after
undergoing treatment , he died.
 The appellant wants to prove that there is no negligence on their part. The transmission line
was snapped but did not touch the ground or any neutral point and was hanging in the air
And there is no indication of snapping of wire they could not inspect and rectify the line,
 Appellant stated that Respondent is entitled for exgratia of Rs.10,000/- but not for
compensation.

Proceeds with the pleadings:

 The council seeks permission to proceed with the pleadings.

 Your lordship, the 1st issue is “Whether the appeal filed u/in the High court of
Rajputana maintainable?” on which the counsel would be eastablishing on 3 points.
o And this issue is refer on the Pg no. 14 in the memorial.
1. Firstly Yes the appeal filed in the hon’ble high court is maintainable under the section 96
of CPC. Because there is no negligency on the part of RSEB and it is completely
carelessness and mistake of roshan (the Deceased).
2. Secondly, the appeal was filed within the statutory time limit. The Limitation Act provides
a specific time limit for filing an appeal, and in this case, the appellant filed the appeal
within the prescribed time period. Therefore, the appeal is maintainable on the grounds that
it was filed within the statutory time limit.
3. In conclusion, the appeal filed in the High Court of Rajputana is maintainable on the
grounds of jurisdiction, compliance with statutory time limits, standing, and strong grounds
of appeal. We request the Hon'ble Court to hear and decide the appeal on its merits and
grant appropriate relief to the appellant.

 Your lordship, the 2nd issue is “Whether RSEB were negligent in their actions?” on
which the counsel would be eastablishing on _ points.
o And this issue is refer on the Pg no. 16 in the memorial.
1. Firstly, RSEB were not negligent in their actions because there was no indication of
snapping wires. So they could not inspect and rectify the line and there was compeletely
carelessness of roshan as he should have used the separate path .
2. Secondly, RSEB contended that they were not negligent in maintaining the lines and
transmission system, and the accident occurred due to the negligence of Roshan. They
Stated that on the intervening night of 01.05.2020, there was heavy wind due to which
the transmission line from Shipra Path to Agarwal Farms snapped but did not touch the
ground or any neutral point and was hanging in the air. As there was no indication of
snapping of wire, they could not inspect and rectify the line, and it was not hanging on
the road, a cart track, a pathway, or a public place.
3. Thirdly, The facts of the case suggest that Roshan stepped on a suspended snapped
live wire of a low-tension line passing through the fields, which led to extensive burns
and shocks, and he became unconscious. But RSEB stated that transmission line from
Shipra Path to Agarwal Farms snapped but did not touch the ground or any neutral
point and was hanging in the air. So the transmission line on which the roshan stepped
may be belongs to another line .

4. The Appellants have not provided any evidence to prove that the RSEB had acted
negligently or breached its duty of care. The Appellants have not shown that the RSEB
had failed to take any reasonable precaution,. The Appellants have not produced any
expert opinion or scientific evidence to support their claim that the power line was
faulty and belongs to RSEB.. The Appellants have not established a causal link between
the alleged negligence of the RSEB and the electrocution of the deceased.
 5. The RSEB also stated that she is entitled for exgratia of Rs.10,000/- but not for
compensation.
6. Conclusion, In light of the foregoing, we respectfully urge the Court to reject the
Appellants' claim that the RSEB was negligent in its actions and dismiss the appeal
with costs.

 Your lordship, now the co-counsel would be dealing with the 3rd and 4th issue.

 The counsel seeks ignorance

 I am able to comment on that sorry.
 For due to possibility of time if I am address the court master to show me a signal of
minute.
 Your lordship just a minute please.
 Your lordship the point to be noted the….
 Thank you lordship to raising a point.
 No your lordship, the counsel does not feel so that your lordship I believe that the counsel
of the respondent has miscoated that facts and I like to clear that for the court.

 Sec 304A of ipc : states that due to grievous hurt if any person die than this section
would be applied.
 Section 338 of ipc: states that any person who suffering from grievous hurt or injuries
than this section would be applied.
 Grievous hurt refers to any hurt which endanger for a life or sufferer.
 Your lordship/ your ladyship, the counsel seeks permission to extend the time for _ minutes