HIMACHAL PRADESH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

ASSIGNEMENT ON THE CASE :-

KLAUS MITTLEBACHART VS EAST INDIA HOTELS LTD

Submitted by: - Submitted to: -

SHIVAM Dr.Chandreshwari Minhas

1020202126 Assistant Professor of Law

B.A. L.L.B. H.P.N.L.U

Semester 1
 ACKNOWLWDGEMENT

Each project, anyway huge generally because of the endavour and commitment of
various people who have helped in or little it could be and anyway significant it is,
is effective the manner they can, by giving data identified with it or by offering
guidance that is fundamental in the consummation of the task. I genuinely like the
help of these individuals and express gratitude toward them for their help and
direction that was instrumental in making this undertaking a triumph.

I shivam, a student of Himachal Pradesh National Law University (Shimla), am

thankful to the University for the certainty offered in me and entrusting my
capacity.

I additionally acknowledge and stretch out my gratitude to my task control, Dr.

Chandreshwari Minhas, who tutored me while assembling the undertaking. Her
knowledge has been incredibly important in the finish of this venture.

I might want to expand my final expression of appreciation to every other person

engaged with helping me with the task.
CONTENTS

 Extracts/Facts of the case

 Issues taken in the case

 Law decided in the case

 judgement

 Ratio decendi

 Obiter dicta of the case

FACTS OF CASE
.Klaus Mittelbachert, the plaintiff was a co-pilot in Lufthansa. He landed at Delhi and was
scheduled to continue the flight to Frankfurt on fourteenth August, 1972. For the interceding
time, chosen in the aircraft wording as lay-over-period, he authenticated into and stayed at the
Hotel Oberoi Intercontinental. .Hotel Oberoi Intercontinental is owned by the defendants. One of
the defendants was its Chairman and it was allegedly being overseen by one more defendant at
the material time. The Hotel had a swimming pool introduced with a jumping board. .In the
evening of August 13, 1972 the plaintiff (Klaus Mittelbachert ) visited the swimming pool. At
about 6.00 p.m. while driving the plaintiff met with a mishap. He had hit his head on the lower
part of the swimming pool. He was taken out seeping from right ear and seeming to have
deadened in the arms and the legs. He was taken to Holy Family Hospital where he stayed under
medical perception until August, 21, 1972 on which date he was taken to Germany under
medical escort. .On 24th March, 1973 he was discharged from the Clinic. Further treatment
delayed yet the circumstance of the plaintiff didn't improve. He was moved back to his residence
where his medications continued. The present suit has been petitioned for recovery of an amount
of Rs.50 lacs via harms with revenue determined @ 12% from the date of the documenting of the
suit until installment and costs.

.According to the plaintiff, the mishap was brought about by what in the conditions amounted to
a trap. The plunging board put at the swimming pool proposed an appropriate profundity of
water into which a swimmer could jump. The defendant hotel owed the plaintiff an obligation to
fare thee well and verify his safety. The defendants have denied their liability. It is presented that
defendants No.2 and 4 host been pointlessly joined as gatherings to the suit as none of them can
be held subject or by and by at risk. The defendants concede that defendant No.1 is the proprietor
of defendant No.3 and is exclusively liable for the demonstrations of defendant No.3. A material
event during the pendency of the suit and brought about the demise of plaintiff because of heart
failure.

ISSUES DISCUSSED IN THE CASE

1. The first issue that is raised deals with deciding whether the defendants were in control of the
premises of Hotel Inter- continental or not on the day of the incident.

2. Another issue that was raised was that whether there was any failure on the part of the plaintiff
hto take reasonable care of himself in his own interest and who has the last opportunity of
avoiding the accident. It was also debatable that whether the disabilities attributed and the death
of the plaintiff was the direct result of the accident that took place or not.

LAW DECIDED IN THE CASE

LEGAL PRINCIPLE

Negligence is a failure to take care of someone like how a sensibly prudent individual would
actualize in comparative conditions. It is an unexpected tort and has four fundamentals

1. Duty of Care

2. Breach of Duty

3. Causation

4. Injury

Negligence is the oversight to perform something which a reasonable man in respect by those
considerations which conventionally control the conduct of human issues would do, or doing
whatever such a man would not do. It is the accidental failure to conform to the conduct of a
reasonable Man. Presently we realize that when a man fails to carry on like a reasonable man as
for a specific demonstration/oversight he is supposed to be careless. It assumes the possibility of
a commitment within each one of us towards the general public everywhere to act in a specific
way. Some cases of negligence are easy to demonstrate for the foolish conduct of an individual –
fulfills all the above necessities, for instance: driving a vehicle at 100 km/hr in a Lane then
negligence is writ huge on the face here. In these issues the inquirer need not be exposed to the
prerequisite of demonstrating the negligence customarily. Res Ipsa Loquitur comes to his guide.
Res ipsa loquitur means "the thing represents itself with no issue". It is a standard of evidence
that moves the ones to refute negligence on the individual whose activity has prompted the harm.
The very demonstration of individual converses volumes about his absence of diligence and
coming about misfortune.

APPLICATION OF LEGAL PRINCIPAL

Breach of Duty is the failure to maintain the required standard of care. In order to determine
whether there has been a Breach of Duty or not one has to check the following1. The importance
of the object to be attained 2. The magnitude of the risk 3. The amount of contemplation for
which facilities are offered 14 14 Ordinary prudence Test The plaintiff must prove that defendant
acted/omitted to do something which a reasonable person of “ordinary prudence” would, or
would not have done Case Example- Kerela State Electricity Board v. Suresh Kumar In this case
there was a minor boy came in contact with overhead electric wire which had sagged to 3 feet
above the ground got electrocuted thereby and received burn injuries. The Electricity Board had
a responsibility to keep the overhead wire 15 feet above the land. The Board was held
responsible for the breach of its statutory duty.In context with the Klaus Mittelbachert vs East
India Hotels Ltd, the question of liability of a five star hotel arose to a visitor who got seriously
injured when the he took a dive in the swimming pool. It was embarked that there is no
difference between a five star hotel owner and an insurer as far as the security of the guests is
concerned. It was also observed that a five star hotel charging high from its guests owes a high
degree of care as regard quality and safety of its structure and services it offers and make
available

DECISION

Co pilot of Lufthansa is wounded by a flaw in the pool of Hotel Oberio Intercontinental which
was reserved by Lufthansa itself and not Klaus Mittelbachert. Hence, there was no Privity of
Contract among Klaus Mittelbachert & the hotel. It was alleged by the Delhi High Court, that
though the contract was among Lufthansa & the hotel, the beneficiaries are the staff who would
stay, and therefore the contract was for their assistance. The defendant hotel owed the plaintiff a
responsibility towards apt attention and security. Having failed therein the defendants are guilty
of negligence and are, therefore, liable to compensate the plaintiff for the consequences flowing
from the accident.
JUDGEMENT

Co pilot of Lufthansa is injured by an imperfection in the pool of Hotel Oberio Intercontinental

which was held by Lufthansa itself and not Klaus Mittelbachert. Hence, there was no Privity of
Contract among Klaus Mittelbachert and the hotel. It was alleged by the Delhi High Court, that
though the contract was among Lufthansa and the hotel, the beneficiaries are the staff who might
remain, and therefore the contract was for their help. The defendant hotel owed the plaintiff a
responsibility towards adept consideration and security. Having flopped therein the defendants
are liable of carelessness and are, therefore, subject to compensate the plaintiff for the
consequences moving from the accident.All these issues are between connected. They arise out
of the contending requests raised by the plaintiff and the defendants regarding whether the
carelessness was with respect to thedefendants or with respect to the plaintiff or whether it was
an instance of contributory carelessness as recommended by the defendants. According to the
plaintiff the mishap was in the conditions added up to a snare. There was inferred intimation by
the hotel that there was legitimate profundity of water. The hotel owed the plaintiff an obligation
to guarantee his wellbeing and having flopped therein should be held to have been negligent

RATIO DECIDENDI

The Board was considered answerable for the breach of its statutory duty. In context with the
Klaus Mittelbachert versus East India Hotels Ltd, the subject of liability of a five star hotel
emerged to a guest who got genuinely harmed when the he took a make a plunge the swimming
pool. Under a standard of strict liability, an individual is liable for all the mishap misfortunes she
causes. Under a standard of negligence, an individual is liable for the mishap misfortunes she
causes just in the event that she was careless for this situation the defendant was both careless in
his conduct and overlooked his statutory duty. Negligence is the oversight to perform something
which a reasonable man in regard by those considerations which customarily control the conduct
of human issues would do, or doing whatever such a man would not do. It is the unintentional
failure to conform to the conduct of a reasonable Man. In context with the Klaus Mittelbachert
versus East India Hotels Ltd, the subject of liability of a five star hotel emerged to a guest who
got truly harmed when the he took a make a plunge the swimming pool. It was set out that there
is no distinction between a five star hotel proprietor and a back up plan the extent that the
security of the visitors is concerned. It was additionally seen that a five star hotel charging high
from its visitors owes a serious level of care as regard quality and safety of its structure and
administrations it offers and make accessible.

OBICTER DICTUM

2.1 Degree of care isn't an phrase with static connotation. Its significance would rely upon given
actuality circumstance the individual who owes a duty to fare thee well, the individual whose
care is to be taken and the topic by reference to which level of care is to be resolved. An
individual, who enters or strolls into any premises, if the premises be available to acknowledge
passage, and there be nothing notice against his entrance, has an option to expect that he is
strolling into a protected premises. The individual going into premises might be an interloper or
an individual welcomed or an individual entering subject to installment or cost charged for the
section. In the commercialized world announcement of care would likewise be controlled by
reference to the value which is being charged... The leg of the seat giving way and cutting down
the client on floor of the hotel would unquestionably welcome not a simple grin but rather a
liability in tort on the hotel proprietor, the last having flopped in releasing his duty to fare thee
well and see that the client was comfortable as well as protected inasmuch as he was inside the
hotel premises whether situated or moving.

2.2 A individual got in a hotel as a visitor appreciates an implied assurance from the hotel that
the owner without anyone else and through his workers, specialists would take appropriate
consideration of the safety of the client. The structure as well as the administrations offered
thereat must be protected and insusceptible from any peril natural or something else. A hotel
proprietor holds himself out as willing and furthermore as fit to accommodate and engage the 17
17 visitors. The quality and safety of the services offered increases with the quantum of the price
paid for being guest at the hotel. Higher the charges, higher the degree to take care.

2.3 To my mind, there is no difference between a five star hotel owner and insurer so far as the
safety of the guest is concerned. In the hotel culture the stars assigned to a hotel are suggestive of
the professional expertise, achievement and quality of the services available at the hotel and
professed and projected by it to the public at large, holding out invitation to the prospective
guests to stay at the hotel-- an assurance as to quality, safety and hazardless ness of the services
offered and available at the hotel. Such a higher degree of care cannot be permitted to be got rid
of by merely putting a signboard or caution notice that the guest staying at the hotel does so at
his own risk or a guest consuming or availing any of the services offered by the hotel does so at
his own risk. The validity of an invitation to avail and enjoy a service and legal consequences
including duty to take care and its degree flowing therefrom cannot be permitted to be softened
by a general notice - at your own risk- which is hardly a deterrent. One who extends an
invitation, tempting the invitee to accept the same cannot be heard to say that the invitee did so at
his own risk