ANURAG SACHDEVA Vs. S. SIVAKAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the Revision Petition No. 3204 of 2017 preferred by Opposite Party No. 3, viz., Anurag Sachdeva and Revision Petition Nos. 3276 and 3277 of 2017 filed by the Complainant under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act"), is to the Orders dtd. 14/7/2017 in Appeal No. 1343/2014 and Appeal No. 1488/2014 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission) whereby the State Commission has concurred with the finding of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-1, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as "District Forum") holding deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties but reduced the compensation the compensation of ?14,00,000/- as awarded by the District Forum to ?8,00,000/-.

(2.) Since all the three Revision Petitions are arising out of one Complaint, they are being disposed of by this common Order.

(3.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Complainant's daughter was student of Class IV B of Opposite Party No. 2 School where Opposite Party No. 1 was the Principal. Opposite Party No. 3 was carrying on repairing work inside the Opposite Party No. 2 School. Complainant's daughter while going to toilet during recess hour on 11/7/2012, met with an accident as a block of cement slipped from height and fell over her right leg. Some personnel of Opposite Party No. 3 carried the daughter of the Complainant to the Command Hospital (EC), Kolkata, where Doctors diagnosed it a case of multiple fracture and she underwent treatment from 11/7/2012 to 18/8/2012. Thereafter Complainant's daughter was taken to Madurai Institute of Orthopedics and Traumatology (in short "MIOT") for better treatment in the native place of the Complainant on 22/8/2012 and she remained admitted there till 27/8/2012. She was again admitted there on 18/9/2012 and discharged on 24/9/2012. The Complainant had to incur an expenditure of approximately ?2,50,000/-. The husband of the Complainant informed the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 regarding treatment and requested for reimbursement of medical expenses of ?2,50,000/- but in vain. Vexed with the attitude of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties as they have failed to restrict the entry of the students at the site while construction work was going on but due to gross negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties, her daughter had suffered various losses and could not lead an independent life throughout the life. The following reliefs were claimed before the District Forum :