SCHOOL OF LAW

presents
2nd BENNETT NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

February 7 to 9, 2020

Venue: School of Law, Bennett University, Greater

Noida

MOOT PROPOSITION

1|Page
 Ainetic Corporation & Another v. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal &
Others
With
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Union of India
And
Raymond Sketcher & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh

MOOT PROPOSITION

1. Safecargo trucks, true to their name, pride themselves on being zero-risk carriers and there has
never been a case of missing or damaged cargo in its entire history. A state-of-the-art autonomous
Safecargo articulated intermodal Truck manufactured by Ainetic Corporation, Noida and operated
by Smalogis Corporation, Mumbai, entered Greater Noida on 2nd July 2035 where the speed limit
in the Smart City is 100 km per hour.

2. The truck commenced journey from Saharanpur on the Amritsar - Kolkata Industrial Corridor to
Greater Noida to reach Kanpur. Once the Safecargo truck entered the Smart City, Mr. Gulshan
Singh, the driver, put the truck on autonomous mode as per protocol. As it cruised at 85 km per
hour through a neatly paved road in an elevated section of the Smart City, the truck began to skid
on a large pool of sludge which had spilled on to the road at a point where the road curved in a
rightward direction. On the left edge of the road was a 25-foot drop. The sludge was from a
malfunctioning sewage system of a smart building whose sensors had broken down. At the same
time Mr. Gulshan Singh noticed a school bus approaching on the other side of the road.

3. The truck had been programmed to privilege the safety of the freight in the truck in crisis
situations. The trailer at the rear fishtailed dangerously close to the right edge of the road. The
onboard artificial intelligence system acted fast to avert danger and instantly steered the truck to
the right to prevent the trailer from falling off the ledge. However, the nose of the truck smashed
into the school bus toppling it and a fraction of a second later the fishtailing trailer slammed into
the bus. Unfortunately, a cow, attached to a local smart temple, which was on a morning stroll
blissfully unaware of the smart environment was also fatally hit. The truck came to standstill in a
classic jack-knife wreck, but the trailer and cargo were intact.

2|Page
4. Robotic cops arrived at the scene within minutes, gathered evidence of the accident, and cleared
the accident scene to enable free flow of traffic while ambulances rushed to the scene and carried
the injured to the nearest hospital with trauma-care facilities. The Robotic cops was designed and
developed by ArtIntel Corporation, which held several patents covering robotic technology. A
municipal van removed the carcass of the cow and smart traffic was restored within half an hour
of the incident. Out of 45 school students, 25 died and 20 suffered from grievous injuries of whom
16 suffered total permanent disability. The bus driver escaped with multiple fractures as he leaped
away from his seat sensing the danger and was lucky to suffer only loss of a lower limb assessed
as partial permanent disability.

5. Upon media coverage of the accident, there was a huge public outcry throughout the state of Uttar
Pradesh. One journalist who specialises in reporting matters of technology, citing an anonymous
whistle-blower in the truck manufacturing company reported in some detail that the algorithm, on
which the software of the autonomous truck was based, privileged the security of the freight in
the truck over lives of people. Another journalist reported that the sensors in the sewage system
broke down frequently, and the engineer, Ms. Talveen Meena had negligently failed to replace
them although the sensors had been malfunctioning for a week now.

6. Upon being interviewed, Ms. Talveen Meena stated that the maintenance of the building was
outsourced to Sensorship Corporation, Pune under a contract and the sensors supplied by them
were all of such low quality that replacement did not improve their functioning. She also cited
mails that she had sent to her CEO and also to the contractor about the quality of the sensors but
stated that no action was taken. Ramesh Thakur, the driver of the school bus admitted that he had
come on to the freight road to avoid congestion on the regular road to the school and he had been
alerted to the congestion in advance by the City’s intelligent traffic and signalling system. But
newspaper editorials wondered why the Control & Command Centre of the Smart City had not
alerted the driver of the truck about the overflowing sludge and the oncoming school bus or even
of the cow, when they constantly boasted of intelligent traffic and signalling systems that supplied
real time information to drivers in smart vehicles.

7. A FIR was registered at the Greater Noida Smart City Police Station in Crime No. 1212 of 2035
by Paresh Rawat, a local plumber, who was an eye-witness to the accident. He described how the
driver had rashly and foolishly steered the truck to the right thereby hitting the school bus.
Investigation commenced and in due course, the Inspector of Police of the Greater Noida Smart

3|Page
 City Police Station lodged a final report before the competent court citing (i) the CEO of Ainetic
Corporation, Mr. Raymond Sketcher as A1 and the CEO of Smalogis Corporation, Ms. Nafisa
Fareed as A2 under section 302 IPC; (ii) the CEO of ArtIntel Corporation, Mr. Lawrence Bosh,
which designed and developed the software for Safecargo Trucks as A3 and the Project Head of
the team, Mr. Avinash Iyer in ArtIntel Corporation which worked on the Safecargo Trucks project
as A4, and the CEO of the Greater Noida Smart City, Mr. Sumeet Gupta as A5 under section 304
IPC; and (iii) the driver of the truck, Mr. Gulshan Singh as A6 and the Engineer, Ms. Talveen
Meena as A7 under section 304A IPC.

8. Rashtriya Gaumata Paripalana Samiti (RSPS), a charitable society registered in Uttar Pradesh
working for declaring the cow as the national animal of India filed an intervention application
complaining that the state had many atheists who show no respect to cows and seeking to amend
the chargesheet to add the offence of cow slaughter and also the offence of outraging religious
feelings of Hindus under section 295 IPC. In particular, they objected to the design of the truck
and its software which neither comprehended nor provided for special protection for cows.

9. The chargesheet highlighted the following facts and materials: -

a. An expert’s technical report commissioned by the Uttar Pradesh Police Department showed
that Safecargo was deliberately programmed to choose the preservation of cargo over
prevention of loss of life in the event of an accident.
b. The expert report also had annexures showing the methods and results of virtual simulation
product testing before the vehicle was made commercially available, and there were a few
scenarios involving accidents similar, though not identical to the one that occurred in Greater
Noida;
c. The expert report also emphasized the fact that the Control & Command Centre had failed
to detect and alert the driver of the truck of the overflowing sludge on the road and the plying
of normal traffic, including the oncoming school bus and the presence of the cow on the road.
d. The advertisement for the sale of trucks highlighted the following features:
i. the preservation and safety of cargo was the central and cardinal principle of its design;
ii. huge saving by its significant fuel economy and other features, thanks to its intelligent
and autonomous technology notwithstanding the relatively higher price of its trucks; and
iii. significantly lower insurance costs, with its zero-risk character.
e. Smalogis’ fleet almost entirely comprised of Safecargo Trucks and their advertisement of zero-
risk to cargo boosted their business exponentially.

4|Page
 f. The chargesheet recorded the fact that some of the material gathered during investigation was
supplied by robotic cops, who had artificial intelligence capabilities to not only gather relevant
material for evidence, but also to identify the specific persons who are culpable on the basis
of their actions and role played by them and also identify the offences committed by each of
them with high level of accuracy surpassing ordinary human capability.
g. As such, it could be inferred that the death of the school children was a programmed event.
It was not merely the result of a rash and negligent act, but a coldly deliberated decision.

10. National Smart City Technology Confederation (NSTC), the trade association of software and
hardware companies which specializes in providing technological services in smart cities in India
produced a well-researched report in May 2030 showing that if product liability is not curtailed in
respect of artificial intelligence and robotics, the flow of foreign direct investment and entry of
state-of-the-art technologies into India would be impeded. The research was funded by a leading
multinational insurance company. Under pressure from NSTC and some international funding
agencies which had funded various smart cities in India, the Central Government introduced a Bill
in the Parliament to restrict product liability in respect of any adverse event in a smart city involving
artificial intelligence and robotics and such other technologies as may be notified by the Central
Government.

11. The Smart Cities (Regulation of Product Liability) Act came into force on 21st December 2034.
The total liability for any adverse event was limited to Rupees 1 Crore irrespective of the number
of people who died or were injured or the value of the loss of or damage to property by the same
(Section 17). The Act provided for a Central Commissioner, with powers of a civil court who
would assess the compensation payable after hearing the affected parties and apportion the same
between various claimants, where there are more than one (Sections 8 & 9). The Commissioner
was also vested with the power, notwithstanding the provisions of the Right to Information Act
2005, to declare by notification that any information or document or material relating to the
technology, equipment or software involving any adverse event in the Smart City was confidential
and thereupon any breach of such a declaration would be punishable with rigorous imprisonment
of upto three years and with fine of upto Rs.10 lakhs (sections 11 & 12). The jurisdiction of all
courts and Tribunals were excluded in matters over which the Commissioner had jurisdiction
(Section 23). The Central Government was empowered to issue directions to the Commissioner,
subject to the provisions of the Act, which the Commissioner was bound to implement (Section
24). The State Government and its officers were bound to comply with directions of the

5|Page
 Commissioner and render all assistance to enable him to fulfil his duties under the Act (Section
25).

12. On 10th November 2035 a joint petition was filed by parents and guardians of the dead and injured
children for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against Ainetic Corporation,
Smalogis Corporation and ArtIntel Corporation for compensation. On receiving notice of the
above petition, Ainetic and ArtIntel filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court arguing that
they do not operate motor vehicles and as such, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has no
jurisdiction over the claim against them and that no cause of action has been made out in law
against them for such a claim; and that claims, if any could only be filed before the Commissioner
under the Smart City (Regulation of Product Liability) Act.

13. On 2nd February 2036 the Government of Uttar Pradesh filed a Writ Petition before the Allahabad
High Court challenging the validity of the provisions of the Smart City (Regulation of Product
Liability) Act contending inter alia that the same were discriminatory and expropriatory; that there
was a violation of Article 50 of the Constitution in as much as judicial functions were vested in an
executive official; that the Smart City was within the State of Uttar Pradesh and it could not be
turned into an enclave of the Central Government; that the power to treat information, materials
and documents as confidential overriding the Right to Information Act which was a constitutional
mandate and equally the vesting of such an extraordinary power to decide upon such
confidentiality in an executive official was arbitrary and ultra vires the Constitution. Some of the
parents of the dead children file an application to be impleaded in support of the State
Government’s submissions. They also inter alia asserted that the Smart City (Regulation of Product
Liability) Act was inapplicable to their claims as the adverse event, comprehended the
programming of the technology which admittedly occurred outside the Smart City and the
principle of strict liability applied to such hazardous technologies.

14. On 3rd March 2036, A1 to A5 in the criminal proceedings filed petitions before the Allahabad High
Court under its inherent power under section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process of court and
secure the ends of justice praying for quashing of the criminal proceedings filed against them inter
alia on the ground that admittedly they were not directly involved in the accident; that there could
be no vicarious liability in criminal law; that the disclaimers in the relevant contracts had not been
taken note of; that the investigation officer has not comprehended the nature and limitations of
advanced technologies like artificial intelligence and robotics; that the evidence gathered by robotic

6|Page
 cops is unreliable and not admissible in evidence; that the Smart City (Regulation of Product
Liability) Act excluded the jurisdiction of criminal courts as well; and lastly, even if the facts
narrated in the chargesheet and the material cited are assumed to be true, no criminal offences
have been made out against them, as alleged, and at best it makes out a case for tortious liability.

15. Both the Writ Petitions filed by and the Petition to quash criminal proceedings are posted before
the Allahabad High Court which have framed the following issues for adjudication:

a) Whether the writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal is maintainable in law?
b) Whether the writ petition filed by a state government challenging the vires of a central
legislation is maintainable in law?
c) Whether the provisions of the Smart City (Regulation of Product Liability) Act are
ultra vires the Constitution?
d) Whether the petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is
maintainable in law?

NOTE - Teams are expected to confine their arguments to these issues but can create sub-issues
thereon. The moot proposition has been drafted by Adv. Swapna Sundar, CEO, IP Dome Strategic
Advisors and Adv. P.V.S. Giridhar, Advocate, Madras High Court. Any attempt to contact the said
person for the purposes of the moot proposition on or before the competition dates shall result
in immediate disqualification from the competition.

****

7|Page