PARTICIPANT CODE:

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

PRACTICE MOOT-2

Before,
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
at
BOMBAY
Section-15 Civil Procedure Code,1908.
PIGGY CHOPS..PLAINTIFF
V.
SX DEN...........................RESPONDENT


ON SUBMISSION TO THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
MEMORIAL FOR THE PLAINTIFF -PIGGY CHOPS


C11


Contents

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................................... 4
STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. 5
ISSUES RAISED ...................................................................................................................... 7
SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS .......................................................................................... 8
ARGUEMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................. 10
Conclusion and Prayer ............................................................................................................... 2




Cases
1. Barrow v. Lewellin, (1615) Hob.62: Pullman v. Hill & Co.,(1891)1 QB 524:39 WR
263: 64 LT 691; ............................................................................................................. 9
2. Channel Seven Adelade Pty Ltd. v. Manock, (2007) 82 ALJR 303 p.314 para 37. ....... 9
3. Cubby,Inc. v. Compuserve,Inc.,776 F. Supp. 135 (SDNY 1991) ................................ 10
4. Donoghue v. Stevenson, (1932) AC 562. ..................................................................... 10
5. Hayward v. Thompson, (1981) 3 ALL ER 450 (458) (CA) ........................................... 8
6. Jeet Kumari Poddar v. Chittagong Engineering and Electrical Supply Co. Ltd. AIR
1947 Cal 195 ................................................................................................................ 10
7. S.N.M Abdi v. Prafulla Kumar Mohanta , AIR (2002) Gau 75. .................................... 9
8. Sim v. Stretch (1936) 2 All ER 1237.............................................................................. 8
9. Veeran v. Krishnamorthy, AIR 1966 Ker 172. ............................................................ 11






STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Plaintiff humbly submits before the Honble High Court of Bombay the memorandum
for the Plaintiffs for the civil application filed by Piggy Chops under Section-5 The Greater
Bombay Laws and the Bombay High Court (Declaration of Limits) Act, 1945.
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present
case.















STATEMENT OF FACTS
-SX FACTOR AND PIGGY CHOPS-
The SX factor is a popular Indian TV reality show which has been on air since 2005. The
show requires young girls to stay in a resort known as the SX Den (located in Bombay) and
participate in the activities which are then shown on National Television and the winner is
selected through public vote. For the comfortable stay of the participants all the basic
facilities are provided at the resort including basic medical care. Celebrities like Pakhi
Sawant and Honey Leone are a product of this show only. Piggy Chops a resident of Kanpur
saw the first season at the age of 15. Ever since then it has been her dream to participate in
the show. She saw it as a medium of making her foray into the Bollywood. When the seventh
season went on air she applied for the auditions and got selected for the same and was invited
to Mumbai in August 2014 to participate in the event. One of the conditions for participating
was that the participant should not have any major disease or illness. While filing the required
consent forms she mentioned that she has mild asthma also adding that it was completely
under control with medications provided by the doctor. However what she forgot to mention
was that her asthma aggravated under extremely humid conditions.
-PIGGY CHOPS AT SX DEN-
After getting selected to the SX Den the hosts of the show asked her a lot of questions and
by calling her a Small Town Girl with not so an impenetrable sense of decorum humiliated
her to the extent that she could not take it any further and fainted on the spot. She also
developed breathing problems as due to power failure the air conditioning went off. Since the
resort was situated far from the city and the medical personnel were on leave, her condition
became worse. On being rushed to the hospital, it was reportedly told by the doctor to the
media that the girl had fainted because of extreme humid conditions. Meanwhile due to her


performance she was voted out by the public. However there was still a chance to make it
back on a wildcard entry. After the wildcard results, all her hopes were shattered.
Pursuant to this she approached the organizers of the show claiming damages for loss of
reputation in the eyes of the right thinking members of the public and for the pain and
suffering she had to undergo due to the negligence of the organizers.



ISSUES RAISED
1. Whether the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to try this case?
2. Whether Piggy Chops lost her reputation in the eyes of the right thinking members
of the public?
3. Whether the organizers can be held vicariously liable for the acts of the hosts of the
show?
4. Whether the organizers of the show are liable for negligence?



SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. WHETHER THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY
THIS CASE?
The Plaintiff humbly submits before this honourable court that this court does have
the jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section-5 The Greater Bombay Laws
and the Bombay High Court (Declaration of Limits) Act, 1945.
1

2. Whether Piggy Chops lost her reputation in the eyes of the right thinking
Members of the Public?
The Plaintiff submits that Piggy Chops did lose her reputation as the host called her Small
Town Girl with not so an impenetrable sense of decorum. The facts explicitly suggest that
she was humiliated to the extent that she could not take it and fainted on the spot which
means that hosts intended to mock the Plaintiff. Arguably the aforementioned statement is
capable of tarnishing Plaintiffs reputation for it does not provide any justification for a
statement which is on the face of it not a fair comment. It is submitted that the statement
made by the organizers can clearly be defamatory because an ordinary member of the
audience cannot be expected to understand the context (unless specifically mentioned) and
therefore it damaged her reputation in the eyes of right thinking members of the public.
3. Whether the organizers can be held vicariously liable for the acts of the hosts of
the show?
The counsel for the Plaintiff submits that organizers can be held vicariously liable for the acts
of the hosts of the show because the act of humiliating Piggy Chops was done in the course of
employment. It is also submitted that the wrongful act by hosts caused mental harassment to

1
The Greater Bombay Laws and the Bombay High Court, (Declaration of Limits) Act, (1945)


the Plaintiff. Therefore the liability does extend to the organizers vicariously, arising out of
the wrongful act done in the course of employment.
4. Whether the organizers of the show are liable for negligence?
The counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the organizers of the show SX DEN owed a duty of
care to Piggy Chops. It is submitted that the fact of organizers failing to provide for backup
against the power failure proves the breach of the duty owed by them to the Plaintiff.
Additionally the absence of medical personnel because of being on a leave at SX-DEN and
no alternative arrangement made by the respondents despite the fact that it was remotely
located proves that there was negligence on part of the respondents.



ARGUEMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY
THIS CASE?
1.1 Territorial J urisdiction:
It is submitted that the honourable court by virtue of Section-3 Bombay City Civil Court
,1948 enjoys territorial jurisdiction.
1.2 Pecuniary J urisdiction:
It is submitted that the aforementioned section of Bombay City Civil Court,1948, also
highlights the pecuniary jurisdiction for matters involving amount exceeding 1crores.
1.3 Lowest courts to try matters:
It is submitted, that Section-15 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 says Every suit shall be
instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it.
2

2. WHETHER PIGGY CHOPS LOST HER REPUTATION IN THE EYES OF
THE RIGHT THINKING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC?
The counsel for the Plaintiff humbly submits that there was a loss of reputation caused to the
Plaintiff. The statement made by the hosts caused substantial harm to the plaintiff.
2.1 The statement made by the hosts was defamatory:
For a tort of defamation to be established it is first of all required to be proven that the
statement is defamatory and the test is that whether word would tend to lower the plaintiff

2
Section-15, Civil Procedure Code,1908.


in the estimation of right-thinking members of the society generally
3
. In case of Hayword v.
Thompson
4
, the court ruled that meaning of a statement is a matter of impression as an
ordinary man gets because an ordinary man cannot be expected to repeatedly go through the
statement and then arrive at a conclusion. Especially this is applicable in case of television
where the viewer is unable to have a repetition of statement for purpose of clarity.
5

Thus we submit that usage of words impenetrable sense of decorum and small town girl is
defamatory within its natural, obvious and primary sense and hence there was damage to
Piggy Chops reputation.
2.2 The said statement was referred to the plaintiff:
The fact that the defamatory statement was referred to the plaintiff is an explicitly mentioned
fact and therefore incontestable.
6
Hence the second essential of defamation is satisfied in the
instant matter.
2.3 The defamatory statement was published:
The facts placed before this court, suggest that the humiliation of Piggy Chops was watched
by thousands of viewers watching SX- factor when it went on air
7
. For fulfilment of the
requirement of Publication, It is required that the statement that is published should be
communicated to some person other than the plaintiff.
8
In the instant matter the show went air
and the statement was watched by thousands of viewers on the national television.
Arguendo i.e. for the sake of arguing if it was accepted that the size of population watching
the national television was confined only to those who watched SX-factor it would not

3
Sim v. Stretch (1936) 2 All ER 1237,(1240) : (1936) 52 TLR 669: 80SJ 703 (HL) (LORD ATKIN)
4
Hayward v. Thompson, (1981) 3 ALL ER 450 (458) (CA)
5
Channel Seven Adelade Pty Ltd. v. Manock, (2007) 82 ALJR 303 p.314 para 37.
6
Practice Moot-2 Problem Statement, (2014-15) p. 1, para-2, 2
nd
line.
7
Practice Moot-2 Problem Statement, (2014-15) p. 1, para-1, 9
th
line.
8
Barrow v. Lewellin, (1615) Hob.62: Pullman v. Hill & Co.,(1891)1 QB 524:39 WR 263: 64 LT 691;
White v. J and F Stone (Lighting Radio), Ltd.,(1939) 2 KB 827:83 SJ 603:55 TLR 949


sustain because In S.N.M Abdi v. Prafulla Kumar Mohanta
9
, it was held that the statement
need not show a tendency of imputation to prejudice the plaintiff in the eye of everyone in the
community or all of his associates. It is suffice to establish that the publication tends to lower
him in the eyes of substantial, respectable group, even though they are a minority of the total
community or of plaintiffs associates. Hence the defamatory statement referred to the
plaintiff was published and that amounts to Defamation.
3. WHETHER THE ORGANIZERS CAN BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE
FOR THE ACTS OF THE HOSTS OF THE SHOW?
The Counsel on behalf of plaintiff submits that the Organizers can be held vicariously liable
for the acts of the hosts of the show, because the hosts while making defamatory statements
were acting in the course of employment.
3.1 There existed a relationship of principal and I ndependent Contractor between
Organizers and the hosts:
A principal is liable vicariously for his agent's acts if the principal manifests his consent to, or
knowingly permits, the agent's exercise of authority, and if the third party believes, with a
reasonable, good faith basis for doing so, that the agent has authority and relies on the agent's
apparently having authority to act. In the instant matter, the fact that the hosts humiliated
Piggy Chops is suggestive of the fact that hosts had at least some say in determining how
show was to be shot (based on the reasonable assumption that Organizers did not promote
such activities intentionally). This discretionary power given to the hosts establishes the
relationship of Principal and Independent Contractor.

9
S.N.M Abdi v. Prafulla Kumar Mohanta , AIR (2002) Gau 75.


An employer can be held vicariously liable for the tort of an independent contractor if the
employer directed or took some part in the act from which the injury resulted
10
. In this
case Organizer participated in the act by not interfering and finally not stopping the telecast.
3.2 The Organizers should be held liable under the principle of Respondeat Superior:
The doctrine of Respondeat Superior which literally means let the superior pay, states
that, it is the one who is superior in terms of capacity, should be held liable for the acts of
servant. In the given case Organizers being superior should be held liable for the wrongful
acts done by the hosts during the course of employment.
4. WHETHER THE ORGANIZERS OF THE SHOW ARE LIABLE FOR
NEGLIGENCE?
4.1 THE RESPONDENT OWED TO THE PLAI NTI FF A DUTY OF CARE:
For a tort of negligence to be established the duty of care is prerequisite.
11
In the instant
matter there was a clear existence of duty of care on part of the respondents because:
4.1.1 Presence of Foreseeability and Proximity-
As decided in the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson the defendant must have taken reasonable
care to avoid acts or omissions which one can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure his
neighbour.
12
In the instant matter, because there were candidates from entire country with
different medical histories the organizers of the show could have reasonably foreseen that a
medical exigency might arise. The organizers of the show, being aware of the fact that resort
SX-Den was located far from the city of Bombay should have (reasonably) taken measures
to ensure proper and prompt medical aid.

10
Cubby,Inc. v. Compuserve,Inc.,776 F. Supp. 135 (SDNY 1991)
11
Jeet Kumari Poddar v. Chittagong Engineering and Electrical Supply Co. Ltd. AIR 1947 Cal 195
12
Donoghue v. Stevenson, (1932) AC 562.


The test of proximity says that the duty is owed to persons who are so closely and directly
affected by ones act that it is reasonable for one to have them in contemplation. In the
instant matter, because Piggy Chops lived in the resort for a specific period of time there is an
evident nearness between her and the organizers.
4.1.2 The duty owed by SX-Den J ust and Reasonable:
It is well settled that even if there is no precedent on a given case to present a similar,
situation where duty of care was recognized, the court can recognize duty of care provided
that such imposition of duty on defendant is just and reasonable
13
. In the present case
extension of such duty to organizers of SX-factor is correct. The reasonableness of such
extension lies within the fact that SX-factor is a national programme and a company
organizing such a show is capable (impliedly) of providing for the facilities. Hence on the
ground that organizer was in a position to discharge such duty, it is submitted that the instant
situation passes the test of reasonability.
On the question of whether such extension of duty to organizers is just, it is submitted that,
because Sx-Den was a national level reality show and it must necessarily be extracting
profits out of broadcast, it becomes just to conclude that they owe a duty to take care of the
participants because practically, success of a reality show depends, by large if not entirely, on
the participants of the said reality show.
Therefore it is submitted that the respondents owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff.
4.2 THERE WAS A BREACH OF DUTY BY ORGANIZERS OF SX-FACTOR:
After establishment of the duty of care owed by defendant it is now required to be proved that
there was a breach of the already proven legal duty. The test for deciding the breach of a legal

13
(1984) 3 ALL ER 529


duty is again that of a reasonable and prudent man. The question thus arises is: Has the
defendant omitted to do something which a reasonable and prudent man would not have
done
14
? It is humbly submitted that the defendants breached the duty of care owed by them
to the plaintiff on many instances.
4.2.1 The organizers failed to provide for backup power supply:
The general rule for testing breach of care is that when circumstances of the act indicate that
certain consequences might ensue, the reasonable person must be held to have foreseen
them.
15
It is submitted that the SX-Den being organizer of a national TV show which was
shot on a remote location must be held to have foreseen the possibility of power failure. It
should therefore be held liable for the breach of duty arising out of lack of alternative
measures taken by the defendants.
Hence it is submitted that the organizers failed to provide any alternative for electricity
during the power failure and this proves the faulty discharge of duty owed by them to the
defendants.
4.2.2 The defendants did not ensure the presence of a medical practitioner in absence
of the regular medical personnel:
It is submitted that the second instance of defendants negligence becomes evident from the
fact that they did not appoint an alternative medical practitioner in event of regular personnel
being on a leave
16
. The fact that the contestants came from different backgrounds with
different medical history coupled with fact, that resort was situated away from the city of
Bombay, gives rise to a duty of the defendants to keep an effective medical team, capable of

14
Blyth v. Waterworks Co., (1856) 11 Ex 781, p. 457.
15
Veeran v. Krishnamorthy, AIR 1966 Ker 172.
16
Practice Moot-2 Problem Statement, (2014-15) p. 1, para-2,5
th
line


meeting any exigency that may arise in the course of event. It is submitted that the defendants
failed to do so and hence there was a breach of duty on their part.
4.3THE BREACH OF DUTY BY THE ORGANI ZERS OF SX-FACTOR CAUSED HARM TO PI GGY
CHOPS?
It is submitted that, the breach of duty by the defendants on multiple instances caused harm to
the plaintiff severely. Firstly, because defendants did not make any arrangement for
electricity after power failure, the plaintiff developed breathing problems.
Secondly, when defendants failed to provide any medical help as and when the exigency
arose, it worsened the condition of the plaintiff and she was dragged to hospital for a problem
which would otherwise have not occurred at all.
Conclusively, it is submitted that defendants are liable for Negligence because they owed a
legal duty, beach of which, led to harm to the plaintiff and plaintiff is entitled to get damages
for the mental strain and an irreparable harm to her reputation.




-MEMORIAL FOR THE PLAINTIFF -





-MEMORIAL FOR THE PLAINTIFF -

Conclusion and Prayer
In the light of the arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Plaintiff humbly submits that
the Honble Court be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1. The Bombay High Court has the jurisdiction to try this case.
2. Piggy Chops lost her reputation in the eyes of right thinking members of the
society.
3. The Organizers of the show can be held vicariously liable for acts of the hosts.
4. The Organizers of the show are liable for Negligence.
5. The plaintiff be paid compensation the extent of 1.5 crore.
The Honble court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which it may deem fit in light
of justice, equity and good conscience.
All of which is respectfully affirmed and submitted


Counsel for Plaintiff
Sd/-