Mock Court
Cases for final round:
Case Study No.1
Mr. Amar, Mr. Akbar and Mr. Anthony insure their lives with M/s Coksure Insurance Co. Ltd., (a subsidiaty of GIC of India) under Janata Personal Accident Policy which apparently offers a very high compensation for lesser premia. The period of insurance as agreed is from 1st November 1999 to 31st October 2008. On accepting the premium, M/s Coksure issues policy schedules to all the insured which contains a term that M/s Coksure may withdraw the plan in between the policy span.
Later during 2004, M/s Coksure Insurance Co. withdraws the scheme as per its management policy based on the condition No. 5 of the policy saying that the scheme is not economically viable. According, the Co sends prorata premia back to all its policy holders including Mr. Amar, Mr. Akbar and Mr. Anthony.
On receipt of the prorate premia under protest, these three plaintiffs move the competent civil court against the Insurance Co alleging that the insurer cannot do so despite therebeing a term to this effect in the policy. The plaintiffs alternatively submit that incase of rescinding the contract, aggrieved shall have to be compensated to the extent of purchasing a similar policy available in the market for rest of the period.
Submit the arguments FOR BOTH PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT.
Case Study No.2
Abhijit Gupt an employee of Mysore Kirlosker Pvt. Ltd. succumbed to the massive cardiac arrest while returning home from the place of employment after completing his job. Subsequently, his alone wife Marina filed a claim petition under workmen’s compensation Act after 2 1/5 year after the death, praying for grant of Rs. 12 lakhs compenation.
M/s Mysore Kirlosker vehemently opposes the petition on the following grounds:
i) the death of the employee has not occurred during/under the course of employment
ii) the cause of death is cardiac arrest and that too has happened elsewhere outside the premises and after the work hours
iii) the other legal heirs have not joined the petition as petitioners but have been made as respondents
iv) the claim is barred by limitation
Marian argues that these are all casual and stock objections of the establishments and have no legal force at all.
Submit the arguments FOR BOTH PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT
Case Study No.3
Mr. Santosh consigns 100 bags of rice to one Mr. Rajesh of Saptapur, Dharwad from Bhalki through M/s Vijayanand Roadlines from its bransh at Bhalki. At the time of receiving consignment, Mr. Vijayanand Roadlines, Bhalki had agreed to reach the destination within 48 hrs. However, on the way the lorry carrying consignment mets with an accident (fire) causing total loss to the consignment. On hearing the news of fire, Mr. Santhosh files a suit at the court having jurisdiction to try transactions occurring within Bhalki jurisdiction, claiming the value of the goods.
M/s Vijayanand Roadlines objects the suit on the following grounds:
i) The suit is filed after the lapse of agreed period of 12 months as stipulated in the consignment note (in case of any dispute pertaining to the transaction the legal action shall be initiated within 12 months).
ii) As per the terms of the consignment it is liable for only Rs. 5000/- in case of any causality.
iii) As per another term it is the Shimoga court which alone has jurisdiction to try any dispute in relation to the transaction since its corporate office is situated at Shimoga.
Submit the arguments FOR BOTH PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT.
Rules:
- Timings 8+1 mins
- 2MIN FOR PLAINTIFF, 2 MIN FOR DEFENDANT TO PUT THERE CASE FURTHER. REST 4 MIN FOR REBUTTLING, LAST ONE IS FOR JUDEGS FOR ENCOUNTER QUESTIONS.
- Report should be submited on 12th september 2009 by 1:00 pm in room No.511
- Teams have to argue their case based on legal points and not unrealistic assumptions.
- All ordinary procedural obligations under law are assumed to have been conducted ordinarily.
- For any further clarification contact Shrey (9916681270)
Manjunath (9242258085).
