You are the manager of a spare part company and you have a big productive company? B? The entry is to negotiate for a deal. The deal is highly competitive and it is very important for your company to get this deal. Dinner is being traded on. After the dinner, the productive company B? The manager of the hotel offered you to leave the hotel with your car. When the Company B visiting the hotel? A man on a motorcycle was badly injured by the manager of the manager. You know that the manager was driving fast and he was losing control of the car. Law enforcement officers come to investigate this incident and you are the only direct witness of this incident. Knowing the stringent laws of road accidents, are you aware of the fact that your statement from the company? B? The manager of the company can be prosecuted, resulting in a deal being in danger and this deal is very important for your company. What kind of dilemmas will you face? What will be your response to this situation?

This matter is related to the conflict between business interests and moral and legal liability. On the one hand, where my liability as a manager of the spare part company is to get a deal from the company 'B', on the other hand it is my moral and legal obligation to give justice to the injured person and to testify in his favor.

Since I am the only witness in relation to this matter, there are mainly two options available to myself.

The first testimony to save the company 'B' manager by refusing to give statement. So that the probability of receiving the deal will increase.

 Presenting the truth of the second incident and getting justice for the person injured in the accident, regardless of the deal.

After evaluating the properties and defects of the above two options, the proper conclusions can be reached.

If option (a) is selected by me then it will have the following qualities and faults:

Qualities: Providing information to be repudiated or misleading by giving me a statement will prove innocent to the company 'B'. This will give me sympathy and my company will be more likely to get a deal from its company.

Impersonation-   Despite the mistake, saving the manager 'B' to the manager will not be morally appropriate nor legally. Most of all, my conscience will never be able to forgive me because I deliberately saved one wrong person.

Similarly if option (b) is selected by me then it will have the following qualities and faults:

Qualities:  By presenting the truth of the incident, I can not only bring justice to an innocent person but also can properly discharge my moral and legal obligations.

Faults-  This will definitely convince the company 'B' manager. Also, the management of Company 'B' can also be upset with the action taken by me. As a result, company 'B' can be denied the deal by my company.

The choice I chose and its reasons:

The option 'B' will be selected by me i.e. that I will put the reality of the incident ahead and I will try to get the injured person justice.

It is known that by presenting the truth of the incident and bringing justice to that innocent person, where there is my moral and social obligation, it is my legal duty to be presented as a witness. The Indian Evidence Act clearly states that the witness is the legal liability of the person.

My move can be denied by the company 'B', but if the products of my company are quality and affordable then we will definitely get a second deal.