7TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

7TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

ROLL NO. 19LLB068

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE MATTERS OF:

VINAYA & ANOTHER………………………………………………… PETITIONER

V.

JOHN……………………………………………………………………….RESPONDENT

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE DISTRICT COURT

UNDER SECTION 9 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 7TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………………(II)
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………….(III)
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………….(IV)
STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………….(V)
STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………………………………………..(VII)
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………(VIII)
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. Both the petitioners have the locus standi to file the present suits… ………………………1

2.That John is liable to pay damages to Vinaya for her loss due to negligence ……………..2

2.1 John is negligent in not taking Vinaya to the Government hospital……………………...2

2.2John is liable to pay damages to Vinaya…………………………………………………..2

3.That John is held liable for paying damages to the other car driver………………………...3

PRAYER………………………………………………………………………........................4

i
 7TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

 V. Versus
 SCC Supreme Court Cases
 AIR All India Reporter
 CPC Civil Procedure Code
 R&D Ratanlal and Dhirajlal
 HON’BLE Honourable

ii
 7TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

Index of Authorities

STATUTES

 Motor vehicles act,1988

BOOKS

 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal Law of torts
 Winfield on Law of torts

CASES

 Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co,1853

 Champalal Jain vs B.P. Benkatrama
 Heaven vs Pender

iii
 7TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is most humbly submitted that the petitioner has

approached the Honourable District Court of Visakhapatnam under the section 9 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908. Under the code of Civil Procedure, A civil court has jurisdiction to
try all the suits of a civil nature unless they are barred.

The Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code states that

“The Court shall have jurisdiction to try all the suits of Civil nature excepting suits of which
their cognizance is either or impliedly barred.”

iv
 7TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 John is professional photographer working in a leading company which sells apparel for expecting
mothers. He has three sisters. The second sister is a doctor and has two kids. John is a very devoted
brother and frequently visits the hospital where his sister works. His sister works at one of the
leading hospitals which is far away from his performance at the company. He had purchased a brand
new car called ‘Venue’ which was bright blue in colour and looked attractive.
 He had four traffic signals on his commute to office every day. On his first signal, he passes by a
petrol bunk. On his second signal, he passes by a Government hospital on the opposite side of the
road. The third signal is an extremely busy signal as there is a school and college near the same.
Near the fourth signal, there is a super speciality hospital on the same side of the road.
 John wanted to take his car to his office to show off to his colleagues after the purchase. He crossed
the first signal and immediately in front of him, he saw an accident, wherein the lady passenger of
an auto was thrown out on the road. The auto though momentarily stopped, fled as soon as crowd
started to gather.
 John parked the car to the side of the road and got out to see if the lady was injured. When he went
to see the lady, he realised that the lady was pregnant and was also his sister’s patient. He recognised
her from one of his visits. He immediately rushed to her side, picked her up and took her in his car
to take her to the hospital. He had tried calling his sister but her phone was unavailable but he did
not attempt to call nearby hospital. The lady was conscious at that time.
 The lady was Vinaya. Her case was frequently discussed at home. She had been childless for about 7
years and finally after John’s sister performed an IVF treatment, she was able to conceive. Vinaya
was aged 43 and the pregnancy was going to be tough one. Though John did not know the details of
Vinaya’s case, he knew that his sister had mentioned a number of times that Vinaya’s case was a
tough one and he knows the basic things what to do in case of emergency as he works in a company
related to expected mothers. In fact, John had observed in his visits to his sister that Vinaya had a
sweet disposition and often played with his niece and nephew, so he is familiar with Vinaya.
 Meanwhile, in a rush of panic, immediately proceeded towards the super speciality hospital. At the
second signal, he realised that Vinaya had lost consciousness; however he stopped at the signal as
the signal was red. He did not prefer the government hospital which is near by. He rushed through
the third signal as the light was yellow. Another car with the same intention of skipping the red light,
rushed through and jammed into the rear of John’s car. He recovered soon but the condition of

v
 7TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

Vinaya was critical. He took Vinaya to the hospital which is very far away. At the hospital, it was
pronounced that Vinaya had given birth to a still born child.
 After coming home, he called his sister and narrated the incident to her. Despite not being present
there, as a sister, she merely comforted her brother saying that he had done all what was there to do
just to comfort him. But he could be more careful in saving a life. She also stated that she would
inform him if Vinaya came back to her for further treatment. After a few days, he receives two
notices that two suits have been filed against him, one by the lady and the other by the other car
owner for payments of damages.

vi
 7TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner humbly submits the issues for Consideration before the
Hon’ble district court.

I.

Whether the petitioners have the locus standi to file this present suits?

II.

Whether John is liable to pay damages to Vinaya, the first petitioner for her immense loss due
to his negligence?

III.

Whether John is held liable for paying damages to the other car driver, the second petitioner
for the damage to the car?

vii
 7TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Both the petitioners have the locus standi to file the present suits.

Locus standi is the right to bring an action or appear in a court. Here the first petitioner
has the locus standi to file her suit to the court under section 9 of Civil Procedure code to
the district court. According to the facts of the case, the first petitioner can claim damages
from John because due to his negligence, the petitioner has suffered an immense loss. The
second petitioner can claim compensation from John as there is damage to the property to
the car owner. Therefore both the plaintiffs have the locus standi.

2. That John is liable to pay damages to Vinaya, the first petitioner for her
immense loss due to John’s negligence.

Negligence as per Winfield1 is defined as, “Negligence as a tort is the breach of legal
duty to care by, which results in damage, undesired by the defendant to the plaintiff”. In other
words it is a breach of duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable man
with ordinary prudence would have taken care of, and the resultant damage. According to the
facts of the case, John is liable to pay damages to Vinaya as he is negligent towards both
Vinaya and also the child in her womb. He has not also taken the basic care of Vinaya.

3. John is held liable for paying damages to the other car driver, the second
petitioner for the damage of the car.

According to Motor vehicles act, 1988 as both John and the other driver with the same
intention had violated the traffic rules and caused an accident. So both of them have equal
intention and equal loss but here we can see that due to past incident, John need not to come
to the third signal, but as he came it will be his mistake by skipping the government hospital.

1
WINFIELD AND JOLOWICZ Tort, 12th ed

viii
 7TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Both the petitioners have the locus standi to file the present suits.

Locus standi means the right of a party to appear and be heard before a court of law and institute a suit or
an action before the court. Locus standi, in legal parlance basically refers to the ability of a party to show
to the court that there exists sufficient connection or nexus or cause of action to the party, from the suit.
The following possibilities are direct effect on the party due to which the party is seeking legal
intervention for relief, existing a reasonable indirect effect on the party, law conferring upon the party an
‘automatic standing’. According to the facts of the case, under section 9 of CPC Vinaya can file a suit on
John on the tort of negligence. Section 9 of CPC deals with the jurisdiction of civil courts in India. It
says that the courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their
cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

2. John is liable to pay damages to Vinaya, the first petitioner for her immense loss due to John’s
negligence.
According to Winfield, negligence is a breach of duty caused by the omission to do something which is a
reasonable man with ordinary prudence would have taken care of, and the resultant damage. There are
basically 3 essentials of negligence. In the case of Heaven v Pender2, there is a breach of duty which is
the first essential of the negligence. They are existing of a duty, breach of a duty, the causation. In the
case, there is an existence of duty of care which is a moral obligation. It was not a legal obligation to take
care of the person who was involved in an accident. It became a moral duty when John has taken the
woman after recognising as Vinaya after she was thrown out of the auto. Now it is his duty to save both
Vinaya and the child in her womb. In the case of Champalal Jain v B.P. Benkatraman3, the plaintiff gets
damaged by the defendant but the plaintiff is negligent as he did not check the magnitude of risk. He
already knows the condition of Vinaya about her pregnancy and the IVF treatment. He is somewhat
familiar with Vinaya’s problem because his sister treats her.

2.1 John is negligent in not taking Vinaya to the Government hospital.

According to the facts of the case, John is a professional photographer working in a leading company
which sells apparel for expecting mothers. When he saw Vinaya lying on the ground after the accident
he immediately took her into the car and tried to join her in a hospital. As it became his moral duty he
had the responsibility of saving both the lady and the child. As he is familiar with the route because he
goes to his office by that road he must have an idea of landmarks of the city. In the case of Blyth v
Birmingham Waterworks Co.,4 there is a negligence shown towards the plaintiff where the plaintiff gets

2
L. R 11 Q.B. Div. 503 ;49 L.T.,N.S.357
3
A.I.R. 1966 Mad. 466
4
(1856) 11 Ex Ch 781, 156 ER 1047
1
 7TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

a huge loss.So when he was taking her in the car he should have taken her to the government hospital
but with negligence and with a risk he has taken her to the super speciality hospital which is very far
away from the place where the accident had happened. He knows that there are many signals in between
them and the super speciality hospital. Instead of taking her to the government hospital, when he
stopped at the second signal, where the government hospital is located, he preferred to go to the
speciality hospital with negligence. Here we can see that due to his negligence she has lost her basic
treatment.
2.2 John is liable to pay damages to Vinaya
As he did not join her in the government hospital at which she was conscious, when they crossed the
third signal Vinaya was unconscious. Then John immediately rushed through the traffic light in
intention to skip the red light. In that course another car jammed through the rear side of John’s car. If
he had stopped and had taken her to the government hospital there would be no other accident caused.
Now due to his negligence, the woman had lost her child on which she had kept millions of hopes and
interest on the child. So therefore, John is liable for paying Vinaya.

3. That John is held liable for paying damages to the other car driver.
After crossing the second signal, when Vinaya lost her consciousness he still had an opportunity to
take a u turn and go to the government hospital. But he did not do so. When he violated the traffic
rules, two cars have been collided with each other. Here the other party can claim damages from
John as he did not stop after being hit. It comes under hit and run case. On these grounds John can
be made liable to pay the damages.

2
 7TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUE RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND

AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT

 The counsel prays for compensation for the first petitioner as she has suffered a very huge loss
by losing her child.

 The counsel prays to pay damages to the second petitioner as he had damaged his car due to the
negligence from both the parties.

Finally the counsel prays for the compensation equal for the damages that have been suffered by the plaintiff.

And pass any such orders as the Honourable Court deems fit and proper, for this the Appellants shall duty
bound pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS