MOOT COURT MEMORIAL

SUBMITTED BY:

KARTHIK B

BATCH (2022-2025)

SUBJECT CO-ORDINATOR:

PROF.ASHISH PATHAK

Alliance university

Alliance School of Law

1
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT

COURT OF DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

RUKHSANA & Ors ………………………….………………………. PLAINTIFFS

VS.

AJAY & Anr. …...………………………….……………... DEFENDANTS

(FILED UNDER SECTION 279,304A INDIA PENAL CODE 1860)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS PAGE NUMBERS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS 7-8

ISSUE RAISED 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10-11

ARGUMENT ADVANCES 12-14

PRAYER 15

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

3
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

Sec Section

para Paragraph

HON’BLE Honorable

IPC Indian penal code

ORS Others

ANR Another

MACT Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

Km/h Kilo meter per hour

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
4
 STATUTES REFERRED

 MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988

 INDIAN PENAL CODEE 1860

BOOKS REFERRED

 Law of Torts by DR. R.K. BANGIA 26TH

 Law of Torts by POLLOCK
 The Law of Negligence and Nuisance by A BUCKLEY
 The Law of Torts by D.D. BASU

CASES REFERRED

INTERNATIONAL CASES

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

5
This Hon’ble District court of Delhi has the jurisdiction to hear this case as it falls within the
ambit of civil & criminal liability arising from a motor vehicle accident and the application of
provisions under the Sec 166 Motor Vehicles Act, of 1988.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

6
 Ajay and Rohit, both 26 years old, are friends and residents of Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi.
They decided to visit archaeological sites in Udaipur, Rajasthan and agreed to travel by
road using Ajay's car.

 On 21/2/2021 the day of the incident, Rohit, an experienced driver, was driving the car
with Ajay's permission. Both friends were enjoying their ride and were following the
speed limits100km/h as per the Motor Vehicles Act

 At approximately 10 AM, while the car was travelling at a speed of 100 km/h on the
Delhi-Jaipur highway, Abdul suddenly appeared in front of the vehicle and was struck.
Abdul sustained severe injuries and was promptly taken to a nearby hospital in Gurgaon.
Tragically, he was declared dead by the doctors.

 In response to the incident, Rukhsana, Abdul's wife, Rauf, his brother, and Azam, his
son, filed a lawsuit against Ajay and Rohit. They alleged that the defendants drove the
car recklessly and negligently, directly causing Abdul's death. The plaintiffs sought a
compensation amount of 30 lahks INR, claiming a nexus between the defendant’s
negligence and the legal injury suffered.

 Conversely, the defendants, Ajay and Rohit, asserted that the collision was an inevitable
accident. They argued that Abdul unexpectedly appeared in front of the car without
warning, from an unexpected location. According to the defendants, driving at 100 km/h
on the highway was permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act, and they had no reason to
anticipate a pedestrian crossing their path.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

Witnesses
7
who were villagers residing near the accident site, testified that they observed the car
traveling at a high speed? However, they were unable to provide precise details regarding the
speed or the specific circumstances leading to the unfortunate incident.

 The car's tires were found to be in a worn-out and deteriorated condition, but the brakes
and steering were in proper working order.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

8
Issue no 1
 Whether the defendants can be held liable for Abdul's death due to rash and negligent
driving?

Issue no 2

 Whether there is sufficient nexus between them?

Issue no 3

 Whether the defendant is legally obligated to pay compensation?

Issue no 4

 Whether the condition of the car's tires has any bearing on the accident and the
defendant's liability

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

9
 Issue no 1

Whether the defendants can be held liable for Abdul's death due to rash and negligent
driving?

The plaintiffs argue that the defendants, Ajay and Rohit, should be held liable for Abdul's death
due to their alleged rash and negligent driving. They contend that the defendants failed to
exercise reasonable care and caution while operating the car, which directly resulted in the fatal
accident. The plaintiffs assert that driving at a high speed of 100 km/h on the Delhi-Jaipur
highway demonstrates a disregard for the safety of other road users. They claim that the
defendants breached their duty of care by driving in a manner that posed an unreasonable risk of
harm to pedestrians, such as Abdul.

Issue no 2

Whether there is sufficient nexus between them?

The plaintiffs assert that there is a clear nexus between the defendants' actions and Abdul's
death. They contend that the defendants' rash and negligent driving directly caused the accident
and subsequent injuries leading to Abdul's demise. The plaintiffs argue that if the defendants had
exercised proper care and caution, they could have avoided the collision or mitigated the severity
of the impact. They rely on witness testimonies to establish the defendants' high-speed driving,
further supporting the argument that their actions directly resulted in Abdul's death.

Issue no 3

Whether the defendant is legally obligated to pay compensation?

The defendants will assert that because they did not drive carelessly and that the accident was
unavoidable, they are not required by law to make restitution payments. They will ask the court
to reject the plaintiffs' claim for compensation since there isn't enough proof to hold them liable.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

10
 ISSUE NO 3
Whether the condition of the car's tires has any bearing on the accident and the
defendant's liability

The plaintiffs argue that the poor condition of the car's tires contributed to the accident and
increases the defendants' liability. They contend that the worn-out tires compromised the car's
ability to maintain proper traction and control, especially at high speeds. The plaintiffs assert that
the defendants had a duty to ensure that the vehicle was in a safe and roadworthy condition,
including the maintenance of the tires. They argue that the defendant’s failure to address the
tire's condition demonstrates their negligence, which directly contributed to the accident and
Abdul's death.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

ADVANCE ARGUMENT

11
ISSUE 1

The plaintiffs argue that the defendants, Ajay and Rohit, should be held liable for Abdul's death
due to their alleged rash and negligent driving. They contend that the defendants failed to
exercise reasonable care and caution while operating the car, which directly resulted in the fatal
accident. The plaintiffs assert that driving at a high speed of 100 km/h on the Delhi-Jaipur
highway demonstrates a disregard for the safety of other road users. They argue that such
excessive speed poses an unreasonable risk to pedestrians, making it difficult for drivers to react
in time to unforeseen events. They contend that the defendants' choice to drive at a high speed in
a populated area shows a lack of reasonable care and caution.
The plaintiffs claim that the defendants breached their duty of care towards Abdul by driving in
a manner that posed an unreasonable risk of harm to pedestrians. They argue that drivers have a
responsibility to operate their vehicles in a manner that ensures the safety of others on the road.
They contend that the defendants' alleged rash and negligent driving, coupled with the high
speed, created a dangerous situation that ultimately led to Abdul's death.

ISSUE 2
The plaintiffs argue that the defendants' high-speed driving on the Delhi-Jaipur highway was a
strong connection between their actions and the accident. They claim that driving at a speed of
100 km/h in an area where pedestrians are likely to be present shows a disregard for the safety of
others on the road. Witness testimonies confirm the defendants' high-speed driving, and the
plaintiffs argue that if the defendants had exercised proper care and caution while driving, they
could have avoided the collision or mitigated the severity of the impact. The plaintiffs argue that
the defendant’s failure to exercise such care and caution directly contributed to the accident and
Abdul's subsequent injuries.

ISSUE 3

The plaintiffs argue that the poor condition of the car's tires played a significant role in the
accident and increases the defendants' liability. They argue that the worn-out tires compromised
the car's ability to maintain proper traction and control, particularly when driving at high speeds.
The plaintiffs further emphasize that the defendants had a duty to address the tire's condition and
ensure that they were in proper working order.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

12
They argue that neglecting the maintenance of the tires breached their duty of care and exposed
others, including Abdul, to an unnecessary risk of harm. Additionally, the plaintiffs argue that
the defendants' failure to address the tire's condition demonstrates their negligence, as they
should have been aware of the importance of maintaining proper tire condition for safe driving..

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

13
PRAYER

The defendants humbly pray that this Honourable Moot Court:

 The plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Honorable Moot Court:

 Holds the defendants liable for the death of Abdul due to their negligent driving.
 Awards compensation of 30 lakh INR to the plaintiffs.
 Rejects the defense of an inevitable accident.
 Considers the worn-out condition of the car's tires as contributory negligence.
 Grants any further relief that the Court deems just and appropriate

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

14
15