CHETANBHAI PRAVINCHANDRA SHAH Vs. HOTEL SHYAM LODGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant in the Complaint before the State Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Complainant') under Sec. 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') against the Order dtd. 21/9/2021, passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the State Commission') in Consumer Complaint No. 45 of 2015. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission while holding the Opposite Party No.2 and 3, the Insurers (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Insurers') liable to compensate the Complainant for the lift accident, has dismissed the Complaint filed by the Complainant/Appellant herein as barred by limitation.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as culled out from the Complaint are that the Complainant was working as Marketing Supervisor and for business purposes he used to visit different towns and cities. During his business visits to Secunderabad he used to stay at Hotel Shyam Lodge, Opposite Party No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Hotel'). On 11/3/2012, he came to Secunderabad and stayed at the Hotel. On the following day i.e. on 12/3/2012 at about 6 P.M. he met with an accident during the course of his stay at the Hotel while attempting to use the Lift Service provided at the Hotel. Immediately, he was admitted in Sunshine Hospital, Paradise Circle, Secunderabad for treatment and was discharged on 16/3/2012 after amputation of his right leg above knee. Thereafter, he was taken to his home town in Ahmedabad where he took treatment and regular dressing at Hari Krupa Hospital-Ahmedabad from 17/3/2012 onwards for about 3 months for post amputation medical care. The accident resulted in permanent partial disablement which affected his earning capacity. Complainant spent huge amount on his treatment but in vain. Hence, Complainant served a Legal Notice dtd. 10/3/2013 upon the Hotel holding them negligent in service and claiming a compensation of 50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty Lakh only). In reply to the said Legal Notice, the Hotel suggested the Complainant to approach the Opposite Party No.2 and 3, the Insurers as they were covered by Public Liability Insurance Policy obtained from them. They also forwarded a photo copy of the policy to the Complainant. According to the Complainant, he had paid the rent to the Hotel for using the facilities provided by them including lift and as such they were liable to compensate him. It was averred that the Hotel was deficient in service as they had not made proper and safe arrangements of the lift facility at their premises for the convenience of their customers and they were equally liable to compensate him adequately for the permanent partial disability. As the Opposite Parties refused to compensate the Complainant for permanent partial disability, he, left with no other option, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties, filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission seeking following relief:-

(3.) Upon notice, the Complaint was contested by the Hotel stating that; the accident occurred as a result of the Complainant's own negligence and such a case ought to have been filed in a Civil Court; Complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation as it has been filed after three years from the date of accident in question; the Complainant is not a 'Consumer' as defined under the Act; Complainant should have taken reasonable care to avoid such an incident; there was regular maintenance of Hotel as well as the amenities provided in the Building including the Lift; the Hotel was covered under the Policy valid from 10/6/2011 to 9/6/2012; the lift was of a reputed brand known as ECE; the lift was well maintained by payment of monthly maintenance charges; etc.