UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL

STUDIES, 9
th
SEMESTER
ACADEMIC MOOT COURT.

IN THE HONOURABLE DISTRICT COURT OF MANALI, HIMACHAL
PRADESH

Civil Suit No. of 2014

IN THE MATTER OF

X.Y.Z.

. PLANTIFF/CLAIMANT

VERSUS

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & OTHERS

DEFENDANT


WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT NO.1






MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT NO.1
SD/-






TABLE OF CONTENTS.

1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Pg.1
Statutes
Books
Websites
Cases
2. TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS..Pg.2
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..Pg.3
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS.Pg.4
5. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES..Pg.5
6. SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS...Pg.6
7. BODY OF PLEADINGS Pg.8
8. PRAYER FOR RELIEFPg.17

























INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.

1. STATUTES
Civil liability act 2002 (New south Wales Legislation)
Central Water commission act
Occupiers Liability act
Bhakra Beas Board Management act
2. BOOKS
Iyers, Ramaswamy, The Law of Torts, Ed 9
th
, Lexis Nexis Butterworts
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts , Wadhwa & Co, New Delhi
R.K. Bangia, The Law of Torts
3. WEBSITES
http://webpage.pace.edu/pacelegalassistance/negligence.htm
http://archive.org/stream/jstor-1321649/1321649_djvu.txt
www.duhaime.org Legal Dictionary
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/land-law/occupiers-liability.htm
www.supremecourt.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/.../whealy1107.pdf
http://www.judis.nic.in
http://www.manupatra.com
http://www.findlaw.com
4. CASES
Fitzgerald v. Conn. River R. R. 155 Mass. 156 (1891)
Weld-Blundells case [1920] AC 956
Addie v Dumbreck [1929] AC 358
Khoo Ting Hong v Sim Guan Soon [1969-1971] SLR 55 at 56
Woodley v. Met. Dist. Ry. Co. 3 (1877)
Consolidated Broken Hill Limited v Edwards[2002] QSC 394
Enright v Coolum Resort Pty Limited [2005] NSWCA 380
Prast v Town of Cottesloe [2000] WASCA 274
Greenland v. Chapplin(1850)5 Ex 243
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) HL
Mahalaxmi v metro water supply board
Ms grewal & anth v Deep Chand Sood & othrs
Klaus mittelbachert v East India Hotel Ltd.
Duraisamy v The Executive Engineer.








TABLE OF ABBREVATIONS.

1. A.I.R. All India Reporter.
2. Art Article
3. HC High court
4. SC Supreme court
5. SCC Supreme Court Cases
6. P. Page
7. US United states of America
8. Vol. Volume
9. UOI union of India
10. CPC- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908



























STATEMENT OF JURTISDICTION.

The counsel on behalf of the defendant submits to the jurisdiction of this District Court under Section 19
of Civil Procedure Code 1908.

Section: 19- Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables.
Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was
done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on
business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the
suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts.


























STATEMENT OF FACTS.

Main facts:
Fifty students of Hyderabad Engineering College, Hyderabad went for an educational trip to Himachal
Pradesh alongwith tour guides of company Holiday Planners and two lecturers of the college. The
students on the last day of the trip went to click pictures of river Beas. The water was suddenly released
from the dam and due to sudden rise of water within few minutes. 24 students alongwith one guide got
drowned
Aftermath:
Immediately search operation was started. Dead bodies of 24-students were recovered from the river. . A
case has been filed by the parents of Students to get compensation of 25 lacs for each student from the
Bhakhara Beas Board, the state of Himachal Pradesh, Hyderabad Engineering College, Hyderabad and
company Holiday Planners, according to them they have lost their children due to negligence of the
State for not managing the river banks properly and putting warning signals at proper places, Bhakhara
Beas Board for sudden release of water in contravention with safety measures, tour planner for being
negligent in planning the tour and also management of the college for being irresponsible in taking care
of students.





















IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES.

1. Whether plantiffs can claim compensation?
Or
Whether plantiffs are themselves negligent?

2. Whether the state government of Himachal Pradesh is negligent?
3. Whether the case filed by plantiff is bad for not giving notice under section 80 of
cpc?
4. Was there any contributory negligence on part of the college management & tour
planners?























SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS.

Whether plantiffs can claim compensation?
OR
Whether plantiffs are themselves negligent?
"Negligence is the failure to bestow the care and skill which the situation demands."
In the present case the students are trespasser as they entered the land without any permission and acted
negligently. Therefore, the Government does not owe any duty to take care towards the student as they
are trespasser, and hence cannot claim compensation for the wrong of which the root lies in their own
negligent act.
The maxim Ex turpi causa non oritur action which means from a dishonorable cause an action does
not arise, will apply here. This legal doctrine states that a person will be unable to pursue a cause of
action, if such action arises as a result of his/her own illegal act.

Whether State Government of Himachal Pradesh is negligent?
The water from the dam is released only after due compliance with the safety measures, of blowing the
sirens fifteen minutes prior to the release of water. Negligence can only be established when it is
sufficiently proven that the defendants had a duty of care towards the plaintiff and they commit breach
of such duty, as a consequence thereof, plaintiffs suffer the damage. Also, the injury so caused must
have been reasonably foreseeable. The defendants were not aware of the presence of the plaintiffs on
their land and could not have foreseen such a tragedy to have happened. It was unavoidable and
inevitable in so far as they could not have taken further reasonably precautionary measures. To be liable
under tort, the defendants need to be hold strictly liable but having refuted the allegations of negligence,
it is humbly submitted that they are also exempted from being liable by the rule of Strict Liability.
In the present case the students are specifically warned by their teachers that not to go to the river side
and also they are students of an Engineering College and are intellectually sound. On the warning given
by the teachers they can easily anticipate that there is an obvious risk that water in river could rise or
anything of the same nature could happen but without caring the warning given by teachers they went
there and took the risk by themselves and in the present situation the students are well aware of the risk
although not accurately, therefore State Government is not negligent.


On the question of foreseeability, the law recognises that precautions can only be taken against
reasonably known risks. If a risk is not known at the time, precautions cannot be taken against an
unforeseeable possibility.
Is there any contributory negligence on the part of college management and tour planners
?

o Negligence on the part of college management: It is humbly submitted that only by getting the
waiver form signed by the students, it does not absolve the college management and
accompanying staff, from their responsibility and duty of care towards their students. Since any
prudent person could reasonably have foreseen the presumable risk by heading into the river,
teachers could have acted more stringently and prevented the students from going inside. Thus,
there is lack of care and caution on their part and they are contributory towards the negligence.

o Negligence on the part of tour planners: It is humbly submitted that whoever is under a duty to
organize the tour shall be liable towards his customers, if they suffer from an injury. A tour planner
is required to carefully inspect into the surroundings before planning the tour and if the site seems
to have a presumable risk of harm, the tour planners should take necessary measures to prevent the
customers from heading towards the danger.











PLEADINGS.

Whether plantiffs can claim compensation?

Negligence is the failure to act as a reasonably cautious person is expected to act within similar
circumstances. Negligence deals with carelessly imposing injury on another, rather than intentionally
doing so. In law, negligence is a type of tort or that may be either criminal or civil in nature. Negligence
means conduct that is culpable because it is below the legal standard protecting individuals against
foreseeable risk or harmful acts of other members of society. Negligent behavior towards others gives
them rights to be compensated for the harm to their body or property.
1


"Negligence is the failure to bestow the care and skill which the situation demands."
The duty imposed upon a man to exercise care towards another must vary according to the character of
the danger, whether hidden or obvious, great or small, and according to the relation between the two
men. The same act may be negligent as against one man, and not as against another. In a given suit,
therefore, for negligence, the defendant's duty to the plaintiff at the particular time of the injury is the
sole thing to be considered, and not his general duty to others.
2

Main ingridients of Negligence are:-
A duty of care (by the defendant to the plaintiff)
A breach of that duty
Damages to persons or property
Causation between the breach and the duty;
The causation must not be too remote from the breach and the duty in the causal chain.
Fitzgerald v. Conn. River R. R.
3
,
In this case it was held that defendant was not liable -
(a) because no duty was imposed by law upon persons standing in the relative positions of the parties,
as, for instance, where the plaintiff is a trespasser, or, where he is not such a person as
the defendant was bound to anticipate would be likely to incur the danger;
(b) because the plaintiff himself had voluntarily placed himself in such a position that no duty arose as
towards him.
Invitees. An invitee is someone that enters the land for the financial benefit of the property
owner/occupier or a person that enters land generally open to the public at large. To invitees, a

1
http://webpage.pace.edu/pacelegalassistance/negligence.htm
2
http://archive.org/stream/jstor-1321649/1321649_djvu.txt
3
155 Mass. 156 (1891)


property owner/occupier owes the duty of reasonable care in maintaining the premises. This duty
includes an affirmative obligation to discover dangers on the property or to warn of them. If the land
owner/occupier has a warning sign present and a personal injury occurs nonetheless, he or she will
probably not be liable because he or she exercised the level of care required of him or her and the
invitee is said to have assumed the risk of the danger.
Licensees. A licensee is any person who is has the express or implied permission of the property
owner/occupier to enter the land. Social guests, for example, are licensees. However, if the social
guest is asked to the leave the property and refuses, he or she becomes a trespasser. To licensees, a
property owner/occupier must fix or warn of concealed dangers he or she knew or should have
known about of which the licensee was unaware. If the land owner/occupier has a warning sign
present and a personal injury occurs nonetheless, as with invitees, he or she will probably not be
liable because he or she exercised the level of care required of him or her.
Trespassers. A trespasser is someone who unlawfully enters or remains on the land of another. To
trespassers, the property owner/occupier owes no duty. In such situations, the presence or absence of a
warning sign is usually not relevant to whether or not the land owner will escape liability. As far as
trespassers are concerned, the occupier ordinarily only owes the duty of refraining from causing
intentional harm to the trespasser. The occupier is under no duty to warn the trespasser of dangers or
make the property safe to protect trespassers from harm.
In the Weld-Blundells case
4
, it has been held that no man can claim damages when the root of the
damage which he claims is his own wrong. Therefore the plantiff being a wrongdoer cannot claim the
compensation.
The maxim Ex turpi causa non oritur action which means from a dishonorable cause an action does
not arise. This legal doctrine states that a person will be unable to pursue a cause of action, if such
action arises as a result of his/her own illegal act.
5


Addie v Dumbreck
6
is a House of Lords decision regarding occupiers' liability and trespassers.
The defendant owned View Park Colliery which was situated in a field adjacent to a road. There was a
fence around the perimeter of the field although there were large gaps in the fence. The field was
frequently used as a short cut to a railway station and children would use it as a playground. The
defendant would often warn people off the land but the attempts were not effective and no real attempt
was made to ensure that people did not come onto the land. A child came on to the land and was killed
when he climbed onto a piece of haulage apparatus.
Held:
No duty of care was owed to trespassers to ensure that they were safe when coming onto the land. The
only duty was not to inflict harm wilfully.

4
[1920] AC 956
5
www.duhaime.org Legal Dictionary
6
[1929] AC 358


Occupiers Liability Act 1984 of UK
The 1984 Act deals with individuals other than visitors and is taken to mean trespassers. A duty of care
has to be established in this case and occurs when the following three factors are met:
1. That the occupier is aware of the danger.
2. That the occupier knows that the other person will be near the danger or that they have
reasonable grounds to believe that it is the case
3. Under the 1984 Act no duty will exist when a person willingly accepts a risk when they trespass
on a certain type of land.
7


There is no liability on the part of an occupier for risks willingly accepted by the visitor or trespasser.

In the case of Khoo Ting Hong v Sim Guan Soon (1969)
8
, as decided by the court of Appeal of
Singapore, it was held that-
To impose liability on an occupier towards a trespasser, these 2 elements must be proved:
that the occupier knew of the presence of the trespasser at the time and place of injury or
could be reposed with knowledge that the presence of the trespasser was extremely likely or very
probable; and

that the injury was caused either by a willful act by the occupier to injure the trespasser or
by the occupiers reckless disregard for the trespassers safety.

In the present case the students are trespasser as they entered the land without any permission and acted
negligently. Therefore, the Government does not owe any duty to take care towards the student as they
are trespasser, and hence cannot claim compensation for the wrong of which the root lies in their own
negligent act.
Assumption of risk
A doctrine that a person may in advance relieve another person of the obligation to act towards him or
her with due care and may accept the chance of being injured also an affirmative defense that the
plaintiff cannot receive compensation for injuries from the defendant because the plaintiff freely and
knowingly assumed the risk of injury and relieved the defendant of the obligation to act with reasonable
care.
In Woodley v. Met. Dist. Ry. Co.
9
, it was held that if a man, not the servant of the Railway Company,
but of a contractor, undertakes to do work in a tunnel where he knows trains are constantly passing, he

7
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/land-law/occupiers-liability.htm
8
3 [1969-1971] SLR 55 at 56
9
3 (1877)


cannot complain that the railway did not warn persons of approaching trains, and that the defendant was
not at fault and owed no duty to the plaintiff. "

Also that the Dean Welfare of University had given permission for an educational trip to visit Agro
Industries in Himachal Pradesh and not for the adventure trip. The students by their own conduct is
negligent and also they have been warned by the accompaining teachers as notr to go to the riverbeds
and they took the risk themselves and hence are not entitled to claim compensation.

Whether State Government of Himachal Pradesh is negligent?
A similar mishap took place on 8th june 2014 and after that the Mandi and Kullu administration
installed warning sign boards at many locations requesting tourists not to go near the river but this has
failed to stop them. During monsoon water level can increase any time, the local people refrain from
going near Beas but tourists are unstoppable and this clearly shows that putting warning boards does not
serve the purpose.
In Consolidated Broken Hill Limited v Edwards
10
, Ipp JA has provided a very useful and careful
summary of the current High Court situation in relation to the concept of obviousness.
Obviousness of risk is not a phrase that denotes a principle or rule of the law of negligence. It is merely
a descriptive phrase that signifies the degree to which risk of harm may be apparent. It is a factor that is
relevant to whether there has been a breach of the duty of care. The weight to be attached to the
obviousness of the risk depends on the totality of all the circumstances. In some circumstances it may be
of such significance and importance as to be effectively conclusive. A case with somewhat extreme
factual circumstances in the realm of obviousness is the decision of Moynihan J in Enright v Coolum
Resort Pty Limited
11
. This was a case decided in November 2002.
The plaintiff was the widow of the unfortunate Mr Enright who drowned at Yaroomba Beach on 3
March 1993. The claim was one for the loss of dependency. The principal issue was the liability of the
defendants. They included the Resort and its interests. The second defendant was the local council. It
sued on the basis that Yaroomba Beach was under its control. There was no dispute in the case that each
of the defendants owed a duty of care to Mr Enright. The plaintiffs case was essentially one of failure
by the defendants to warn Mr Enright of the dangers of swimming at un-patrolled Yaroomba Beach. In
the case of the Council, there was an alleged failure to provide a warning sign in the park area from
which Mr Enright had accessed the beach.
In deciding the case a number of judgements have been referred. One of those was the decision of the
Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in Prast v Town of Cottesloe
12
where the issue

10
[2005] NSWCA 380

11
[2002] QSC 394

12
[2000] WASCA 274



was whether the local authority ought to have provided a warning to surfers of the dangers of suffering a
serious injury as a consequence of being dumped by a wave.
Sea conditions often change. Currents, rips and surges unexpectedly materialise. Large and
unexpected waves materialise out of the deep. These phenomenon are all capable of causing
serious injury or death.Surges and unexpected large waves can hurl an unsuspecting swimmer
against rocks or on to the seashore, with serious damage to body and limb. And yet the
suggestion that signs should be placed on all beaches in Australia indicating that swimming in
the sea could lead to serious injury or death would be absurd. The absurdity lies in the
obviousness of the danger that attaches to the common everyday, activity of swimming in the
sea

It seems that the unfortunate Mr Enright went off on a frolic of his own. For example, on his way to the
Resort, he had been told that Yaroomba Beach was not a safe place at which to swim. In fact, he had
been advised that he should swim only at Coolum Beach where it was safer, or in one of the Resorts
swimming pools.
His Honour said: -
A sign which said for example, surfing dangerous, it is dangerous to get out of your depth is simply
a statement of what already ought to have been obvious to Enright. Since in is my view Enright did not
drown because of a rip, a sign warning against rips would not have been to the point.
Therefore putting warning boards is not going to serve any purpose when the student know about the
obvious risk when the teachers accompanying them have specifically warned them not to go to river side
and even alleging that there is no sign board is absurd because it is practically and consciously not
possible to put boards in each and every spot and every river flowing through the state as there are in
large number. And also management of river banks is not the proximate cause of the incident and
therefore no inference of negligence can be drawn from this fact because for negligence fact should be
the immediate cause of incident.
Meaning of obvious risk
(1) An "obvious risk" to a person who suffers harm is a risk that, in the circumstances, would have been
obvious to a reasonable person in the position of that person.
(2) Obvious risks include risks that are patent or a matter of common knowledge.
(3) A risk of something occurring can be an obvious risk even though it has a low probability of
occurring.
(4) A risk can be an obvious risk even if the risk (or a condition or circumstance that gives rise to the
risk) not prominent, conspicuous or physically observable.
13


13
www.supremecourt.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/.../whealy1107.pdf


In the present case the students are specifically warned by their teachers that not to go to the river side
and also they are students of an Engineering College and are intellectually sound. On the warning given
by the teachers they can easily anticipate that there is an obvious risk that water in river could rise or
anything of the same nature could happen but without caring the warning given by teachers they went
there and took the risk by themselves and the above authority clearly covers the point and hence State
Government is not liable for negligence.
On the question of foreseeability, the law recognises that precautions can only be taken against
reasonably known risks. If a risk is not known at the time, precautions cannot be taken against an
unforeseeable possibility.
In the case of Greenland v. Chapplin
14
, the court held that this test means that if the damage
complained of was forseeable by the defendant as a reasonable man, his breach of duty or negligent
conduct would be the legal cause of damage and he would be responsible for it.
15

In the case of Donoghue v Stevenson
16
:-
C, Mrs Donoghue went to Minchella's Wellmeadow Cafe in Paisley with a friend. The friend ordered ice
cream over which part of a bottle of ginger beer was poured. When the remainder of the ginger beer was
poured, it was found to contain a decomposed snail. Mrs Donoghue became ill through having
consumed contaminated ginger beer.
Held:
"The rule that you are to love your neighbour become in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and
the lawyer's question, Who is my neighbour? Receives a restricted reply. You must reasonable care to
avoid acts or omissions, which you can reasonably foresee, would be likely to injure your neighbour.
Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and directly
affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am
directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question."
Also the Bhakra Beas Board has acted as per the CWC(Central Water Commission) Guidelines and has
not realesed the water suddenlt but after 15 minutes of blowing the siren, and therefore not negligent in
their part. Hence, as the Board has acted with due diligence there is no liability of State vicraously also.

The plaintiffs had submitted themselves to the presumable risk of harm by meddling into the river
voluntarily. The maxims Volenti Not Fit Injuria and Ex Turpi Causa Non OriturActioare both
applicable on them. Even when the proper warning signs were placed, they intruded into the land
belonging to the State.



14
(1850)5 Ex 243
15
Iyers, Ramaswamy, The Law Of Torts, ed. 9
th
, Lexis Nexis Butterworts
16
(1932) HL


It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that the respondent have taken all the safety measures
prescribed by the Central Water Commission before releasing the water from the Dam.
According to the Central Water Commission guidelines to ensure the safety of the life and property of
people says the siren should be blown before releasing the water from the Dam and water should be
released 15 minutes after blowing the siren. The Dam officials rightly blown the horn 15 minutes before
releasing the water and proper sign boards were there on the river side.
Regarding reasons for sudden release of water was that the State Load Dispatch Centre which usually
directs Power Companies how much electricity is needed on a particular day, had directed Bhakhara
Beas Board to stop producing further electricity which may cause grid collapse, so water had to be
released from the dam.
Firstly, the students ignored the security siren, by normal protocol water is released 15-minutes after the
siren and water was not risen suddenly, when they saw the water is rising still they didnt dispersed from
the site, considering that they were the college students some common sense should have applied.
To establish negligence there must be a breach of duty on the part of respondent but in this case a
reasonable standard of care has taken by the respondent so no breach of duty on the part of respondent
and board can not be made liable for the negligence.
It should be contended here that there is no previous history of such an accident took place here as our
security protocols are up to date.
It is also contended that to negligence can only be established when it is sufficiently proven that the
defendants had a duty of care towards the plaintiff and they commit breach of such duty, as a
consequence thereof, plaintiffs suffer the damage. Also, the injury so caused must have been reasonably
foreseeable. The defendants were not aware of the presence of the plaintiffs on their land and could not
have foreseen such a tragedy to have happened. It was unavoidable and inevitable in so far as they could
not have taken further reasonably precautionary measures. To be liable under tort, the defendants need
to be hold strictly liable but having refuted the allegations of negligence, it is humbly submitted that they
are also exempted from being liable by the rule of Strict Liability.
Therefore, the question of paying compensation doesnt arise.
From the above arguments, it can be proved that there is no negligence on the part of Bhakhara Beas
Management Board and they have taken all the safety and security measures.
It is therefore clear that there is no negligence on the part of the State Government. Even the
plantiffs should not be allowed to plead contributory negligence so as to apportion the liability in
order to get the reduced amount of compensation because for contributory negligence there
should be an act of negligence on both the parties and in the present case there is no negligence on
the part of the state government.
Whether the case filed by plantiff is bad for not giving notice under section 80 of cpc?



Two months institution of notice before filing of caseIt should further be remembered that Section
80 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that no suit shall be instituted against the Government or a
Public Officer in respect of an official act, unless two months notice has been given of the intention to
bring such suit, and that the plaint must contain a statement that such notice has been duly given.
Is there any contributory negligence owing to tour planners, management of Hyderabad Engineering
College?
In the present case, it is submitted before the Honble Court that the students of Hyderabad Engineering
College came for an Educational Trip to visit an Agro Industry and not for an adventurous trip and we
had no information regarding this tour.
They came here on educational trip and started taking pictures after entering the river without our
permission just to put the pictures on the social media. They themselves endangered their lives as they
were mature enough to understand what can be consequences. If they wanted to take pictures, they could
have clicked on the road side, why they entered the river.
We have no information that students were entering the river as they entered in the river at their own
risk, there is legal principle in law of Tort called VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA that is if one who
knowingly and voluntarily consents to and takes on a risk (for example, by participating in a potentially
dangerous sport, such as motor racing or entering the river) cannot ask for compensation. Supposedly a
train hit the person crossing beneath a railway barriers despite the train blown the horn this doesnt mean
railway management is responsible for the accident.
If the case is that it is a duty of the board to look out as the site belong to the board, then the information
should have given to the board otherwise it is a trespass as in the case of MAHALAKSHMI V. METRO
WATER SUPPLY BOARD dismissed by the court as in the case court said that it was a giant water
pipeline and the deceased boy had no business to go over the pipeline as there was a regular road
available. It was pointed out that the said water pipeline was not meant for being treaded upon. It was
controlled by the board and deceased has no right to go over there, it was a trespass on the part of
deceased.
It is also condemned hereby signing the waiver form between the students and the college, this doesnt
mean college have waived all its responsibility. The teacher alongwith the students must stop them to go
the river as decided by the court in M.S. GREWAL & ANTH V. DEEP CHAND SOOD & OTH. this


was a case where fourteen students of a public school were drowned when they had gone on a picnic
though under the guidance of their teachers, due to the negligence of two teachers 14 students had
drowned and court said that it was the responsibility of teacher to take care of students and found the
school negligent and ordered to pay compensation
There was also negligence on the part of tour guide who should supposed to have awareness of the area,
they should have stopped them before entering the river as in case of KLAUS MITTELBACHERT vs
EAST INDIA HOTEL LT in this case plaintiff visited the swimming pool the hotel arranged by the tour
planner while diving the plaintiff met with an accident. He had hit his head on the bottom of the
swimming pool. He was taken out bleeding from right ear and appearing to have paralyzed in the arms
and the legs. He claimed the compensation of 50 lac. The court held that it was the duty of tour planner to
take care of customer and any breach of duty is negligence on his part and to pay the compensation of 50
lacs with interest.
From the above arguments, it is clear that it was the contributory negligence on the part of college, tour
planner and students.













PRAYER FOR RELIEF.

In the light of the issues raised, authorities cited and arguments advanced, it is humbly submitted that the
Honble Court may be pleased to hold, adjudge and declare:
a. That the plantiffs were themselves negligent and should not claim compensation.
b. That State Govenment is not negligent in taking due care as per the circumstances of the present case.
c. That the case for the claim of compensation of plantiffs should be dismissed.
And any other relief that this Honble Court may be pleased to grant in the interest of justice, equity and
good conscience.
And for this act of kindness Your Lordships the Respondent shall as duty bound ever pray.



(Counsel for Defendant No.1)