Intra Department Moot Court Competition-2023

Moot Proposition

1. Bindia, a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic & republic country, gained independence
in 1947 and its Constitution came into force on January 26, 1950. The country is the seventh
largest country in terms of area. Also, it is the most populous country in the world with a
population of around 1.4 billion people.
2. The main mode of traveling and commuting in Bindia is by road. People use several forms of
vehicles and modes to travel by road. This includes the usage of public transportation, two-
wheelers, cars, taxis, etc. Heavy vehicles like trucks and tractors are also used for
commercial purposes like transporting goods and raw materials. However, the heavy traffic
and rush on the roads has persistently been the cause of a large number of motor accidents.
3. Keeping the same in mind, the central government amended the law governing motor
vehicles and introduced the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) to
compensate the victims of road accidents and to penalize the wrongdoers under the Act.
4. Sindigarh, capital of the state Arbaaz, is a city located in the northern region of Bindia.
Sameer, a 24-year-old, was a resident of Sindigarh who had completed his graduation in law
in May 2021. Sameer was working as a paralegal at Singhania & Singhania Associates, a
leading law firm in the country, and was paid INR 10,000/month. As per the policy of the
company, any new law graduate was required to work as a paralegal for one year before
being promoted to the post of a junior associate.
5. On 15.01.2022, Sameer was traveling back home at around 10:45 p.m. after having dinner
with his friends. He was riding alone on his motorbike bearing registration number ‘SH 01
AT 0098’. Sameer was driving at a speed of around 55 km/h on the left side of the road.
Suddenly, a truck bearing registration number ‘AZ 22 BS 4190’, being driven by Dilipveer
Singh, a Sindhi hailing from Sindigarh, overtook a car from its left side and collided with the
motorbike. As a result of the impact, Sameer was thrown several feet away and the
motorbike rammed into the divider of the road. The truck driver lost control of the truck and
rammed into an electricity pole at the side of the road.

1 Moot Court Society, UILS

6. Sameer was rushed to the hospital where he underwent two brain surgeries. However, despite
the best efforts of the doctors, Sameer could not survive and he succumbed to death on
19.01.2022 at 12:00 p.m. It was stated by the doctors that the deceased had sustained several
head injuries and other fractures that led to his death.
7. Subsequently, Sameer’s parents- Mr. Vaibhav and Mrs. Shalini filed an application for
compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the
Tribunal) on 01.02.2022 seeking total compensation of INR 10,25,000/- from the
respondents- the driver of the vehicle (Respondent No. 1), owner of the vehicle (Respondent
No. 2) and the insurance company (Respondent No. 3). The said amount was arrived at by
taking the income of the deceased at INR 50,000/month.
8. It was pleaded by the claimants that their son had a bright future ahead as he had cleared the
ACS- (Judicial) examination and that he would have been entitled to a monthly salary of INR
45,000/- along with other ancillary benefits post his appointment. The claimants also
produced the result of Sameer as evidence before the Tribunal.
9. The claimants also stated that Sameer had been offered a permanent job as a junior associate
at Singhania & Singhania Associates for a monthly salary of INR 25,000/-. To prove the
same, the claimants examined Mr. Rahul, senior partner at Singhania & Singhania
Associates. Mr. Rahul had stated in his testimony that Sameer was a bright individual and
that he would have certainly been made a junior associate at the firm.
10. The claimants also produced an eye-witness, Mr. Kuldeep, before the Tribunal who testified
that he had seen the accident while he was easing himself alongside the road. He stated that
the truck made a sharp and rash cut while overtaking a car from the left side and collided
with the motorbike. He also stated that the rider was wearing a helmet and recalled the
registration number of the truck. However, he was not able to recall the registration number
of the motorbike.
11. The police officials who made the investigation informed the Tribunal that the truck bearing
number ‘AZ 22 BS 4190’ was being driven by Dilipveer Singh and was owned by Mr. Sagar
Shukla who ran a transportation business under the name of M/s Shukla Transporters and
Carriers. Dilipveer had been working with Mr. Shukla for the last 18 months and was their

2 Moot Court Society, UILS

main driver. The truck was insured with Bindia National Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. and
had a valid registration certificate. The police also informed the Tribunal that a half-filled
bottle of liquor had been recovered from the truck, however, no breathalyzer test had been
conducted by the officials. Lastly, the police officials also informed the Tribunal that no
helmet had been recovered from the place of the accident.
12. Respondents No. 1 and 2 contended before the Tribunal that the claimants had filed a
fabricated claim before the Tribunal as the deceased was riding at a high speed and was not
wearing a helmet. They further stated that the claimants had overstated the income and future
prospects of the deceased and claimed that the truck was being driven safely and no rash
attempt had been made to overtake the car from the wrong side.
13. Respondent No. 3 had contended before the Tribunal that the company was not liable to
make good any loss to the claimants as the driver of the vehicle was driving under the
influence of alcohol. It was also contended by the respondents that the driver of the vehicle
possessed a fake driving license.
14. After having heard the parties, the Tribunal held that it was a case of contributory negligence.
The Tribunal opined that the eye-witness testimony cannot be completely relied upon as his
name was not mentioned in the list of witnesses in the chargesheet. The Tribunal reassessed
the income of the claimant and further stated that Respondent No. 3 was completely liable to
compensate the deceased as it had not been able to make out a case for exclusion.
15. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of INR 2,38,000/- along with interest @8%
p.a. to the claimants vide award dated 05.06.2022. The detailed award is produced hereunder:

S. No. Head of Compensation Amount Awarded (INR)

1. Actual Income 10,000

2. Future Prospects (40% of 10,000) 4,000

3. Deduction Towards Personal Expenses (50% 7,000

4. Multiplier 18

3 Moot Court Society, UILS

5. Total Loss of Dependency (I) 1,26,000

6. Medical Expenses (II) 2,00,000

7. Loss of Love and Affection (III) 40,000

8. Filial Consortium (IV) 80,000

9. Funeral Expenses (V) 15,000

10. Loss of Estate (VI) 15,000

TOTAL (I+II+III+IV+V+VI) [A] 4,76,000

50% Deduction Towards Contributory Negligence [B] 2,38,000

TOTAL COMPENSATION PAYABLE [A-B] 2,38,000

16. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimants filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of
Arbaaz bearing number: FAO No. 2579 of 2022 on 05.08.2022 seeking enhancement of
compensation and challenging the finding of the Tribunal that the said accident is a case of
contributory negligence. Another appeal was preferred by Respondent No. 3 before the
Hon’ble High Court bearing number: FAO No. 3190 of 2022 on 10.08.2022 seeking
exclusion of liability.
17. The Hon’ble High Court decided to hear both petitions together and framed the following
issues of law:
a. Whether the accident dated 15.01.2022 amounts to a case of contributory negligence?
b. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation?
c. Whether the insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the
claimants?
18. The appeals are listed for the final hearing on 20.04.2023.

(Argue on behalf of the claimants and respondents).

4 Moot Court Society, UILS

For the purpose of the Moot Competition, Issue No. 3 shall be contended by the counsel for the
Claimants on behalf of Respondent No. 3.

NOTE:

● The laws and rules of Bindia and Arbaaz are at par with the laws of the Union of India and
Punjab respectively.
● The participants are free to argue upon additional issues.

5 Moot Court Society, UILS