15.petitioner Moot Memo - Real Court. Vidhi Doshi
15.petitioner Moot Memo - Real Court. Vidhi Doshi
15.petitioner Moot Memo - Real Court. Vidhi Doshi
Submitted To-
Adv. A.K. Shukla
SCHOOL OF LAW, NMIMS
DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY
Submitted By-
Vidhi Doshi
BA.LLB (HONS)
A015
IN THE MATTER OF
V.
Prayer ...................................................................................................................................... 15
Ltd. Limited
Ors. Others
SC Supreme Court
HC High Court
Co. Company
Hon’ble Honourable
V. Versus
& And
Art. Article
Ed. Edition
Vol. Volume
Rs. Rupees
Corp. Corporation
Sec. Section
Cases Referred:
Statutes reserved:
The petitioner has the honor to submit before the Hon’ble High court of Bombay, which has
the inherent jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose of the present case by the virtue of the
Bombay High Court Rules (Original Side),1980 along with Sec. 6 of the Code of Civil
Procedure,19082.
• Despite the hectic work schedule, The petitioner makes it a point to take a family vacation
once every few years with his wife and two kids. During July 2017, The petitioner was
planning for a family vacation to Australia in the second week of September 2017. For
making arrangements for his trip to Sydney via Singapore, The petitioner contacted Travel
solutions private limited.
• The sales team of Travel solutions private limited met The petitioner and explainedto him
about the services provided by them. Heisenberg was particularly concerned aboutthe visa
process. He was informed that the process of issuance of a tourist visa generally takes 10-
15 days.
• Heisenberg was given a list of documents required for the processing of visa on by
Mr. Mr. Tommen of Travel solutions private limited. He had requested him to secure the
documents and give it to him personally so that he may scrutinize it and send it to their
Delhi Office for filing it with the embassy.
• Heisenberg managed to submit the documents to Travel solutions private limited onthe
evening of 11.08.2017 at the reception desk, however, by that time Mr. Tommenhad already
left the office. Heisenberg called up Mr. Tommen who instructed thereceptionist to dispatch
the documents immediately.
• On 21.08.2017, The petitioner got a call from the Delhi office of Travel solutions private
limited informing him that an additional document was required.
• He was informed that on 12.08.2017 to 13.08.2017 the office was closed on account of
Christmas and New Year Holiday. The documents were dispatched on 16.08.2017 and
• The petitioner sued before the High Court of Mumbai for negligence. He claimed a sum of
Rs. 50 lakhs towards cancelled air tickets, hotel reservations, mental trauma, agony etc.
suffered by him and his family owing to the negligence on the part of.
• The petitioner filed a counterclaim against. It wascontended by them that owing to the
malicious propaganda, has suffered a tremendous loss of image, reputation and good-will.
The social media misinformation is false and defamatory in nature.
3) Was there breach of contract arising between both the parties which made the
respondent liable to pay damages?
Mr. Tommen who was an employ at Travel pvt Ltd where he told the petitioner that he would
scrutinize all the documents before sending it to the embassy but the employee of Travel Pvt
Ltd failed to do that which caused the delay in processing of visa and this action caused the
petitioner a huge economical loss and according to the legal maxim of Res Ipsa Loquitor
which means the thing speaks for itself there was negligence on the part of Mr. Tommen,
thus Travel Pvt ltd have to compensate the petitioner for their negligence. Travel Pvt ltd are
hence liable for the negligence of their employee according to Qui facit per alium facit per se
which means “he who does an act through another is deemed in law to be have done it by
himself. However, for liability to arise, two parties must have certain relation such as
employer and employee which can be seen in the legal maxim of Respondent Superior and
according to the principal of vicarious liability which means the superior is responsible for
the acts done by the subordinate.
It is further submitted to the Hon’ble court that Travel Solutions Private Limited was also
fraudulent in their act as facts suggest that the co. did not inform the plaintiff about the
vacation break and also did not inform about the refund rules of both the different flights.
3. Was there breach of contract arising between both the parties which made the
respondent liable to pay damages?
It is further submitted due to the negligent acts of the co. Mr. Heisenberg suffered multiple
damages. As the facts of the case suggest Mr. Heisenberg missed his flight from Chennai as the
passports did not reach on time and further, he got to know that the flight was non-refundable.
He also lost all his money in visa and hotel reservations. Owing to the negligence on the part
of the co. Mr. Heisenberg and his family faced mental trauma, agony, stress etc.
Since the contract is broken when the petitioner couldn’t board the flight there was a loss
faced by him as the flight was also completely non-refundable and the respondent
company had the duty to inform the passengers about the non-refundability of the flights
and also it was their duty to courier the documents on time which they failed to comply
with and hence there was a breach of duty and hence the respondent is liable to pay
damages.
23. It came as a shock to The petitioner for he had lost a lot of money towards the flight tickets
in addition to the money spent on the hotel reservations. However, more than that he was
aghast at the fact that his family had to undergo the entire ordeal17.
24. Finally, concluding the argument we would like to submit to the Hon’ble court that Rs.50
Lakhs should be provided as compensation against the damages.
III. Was there breach of contract arising between both the parties which made the
respondent liable to pay damages?
25. The petitioner sued the respondent before the High Court of Mumbai for negligence.
He claimed a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs towards cancelled air tickets, hotel reservations,
mental trauma, agony etc. suffered by him and his family owing to the negligence on
26. According to Section 2(a) of the Indian Contracts Act,1872 , “When one person
signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view
to obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a
proposal”.
27. With respect to the facts it can be stated that when the petitioner approached the
respondent for booking the tickets and for the visa process a proposal is said to be made.
28. According to section 2(d) of the Indian Contracts Act,1872 , “ When, at the desire of
the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or
29. As per the stated facts it is said that the respondent acted on the advice of the petitioner
and booked the tickets hence establishing consideration and similarly cited in M/s
impliedly accepted the offer and hence there existed acceptance and a valid legal
contract.
31. According to Section 73 of the Indian Contracts Act,1872, “When a contract has been
broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who
has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby,
which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the
parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.”
32. Here since the contract is broken when the petitioner couldn’t board the flight there
was a loss faced by him as the flight was also completely non-refundable and the
respondent company had the duty to inform the passengers about the non-refundability
of the flights and also it was their duty to courier the documents on time which they
failed to comply with and hence there was a breach of duty and hence the respondent
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most
humbly prayed by the counsel on behalf of the petitioner that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to adjudge and declare that:
3. Compensation of Rs.50 Lakhs should be granted to the petitioner towards the damages.
And pass any other order that this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit in the interests of
justice, equity and good conscience.
Respectfully Submitted,