RAJAMANI Vs. PRINCIPAL LOYOLA MATRICULATION HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint under Sec.17 read with Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

(2.) The complainants are man and wife. Their only son R. Gopinath aged about 15 years was studying in the IX standard of the first opposite party school. In the summer vacation in 1993, the first opposite party invited the Students of the school to join the Summer Coaching Scheme in various disciplines. The first opposite party promised that the P. T. Master will accompany the students for their safety. The complainants admitted their son Gopinath in the swimming class and paid a fee of Rs.300/-. The swimming class is conducted by the second opposite party Sports Development Authority and the third opposite party is a wing of the second opposite party. The complainants' son was attending the course from 16-04-93 with two other students. On 28-04-93 at about 5.30 p. m. the complainants heard that their son had drowned in the swimming pool and was taken to the K. M. C. Hospital. They rushed to the hospital and found that their son had died of drowning. According to the complainant there was deficiency of service on the part of the first opposite party school, P. T. master of the first opposite party never accompanied the students to the swimming pool. There was deficiency on the part of the opposite parties 2 and 3 because they did not provide any qualified coach. The complainants claimed compensation in the sum of Rs.7 lakhs.

(3.) The first opposite party admitted that the complainant's son was a student in IXth standard and that in the Summer Vacation of 1993 he called for students to join the summer coaching classes. Only 5 students gave their names for the swimming for which the charge was Rs.250/-. Due to poor response the school did not take up this coaching. It had nothing to do with the swimming class conducted by the opposite parties 2 and 3. The fees collected by the school were refunded. But the complainant's son and 2 others joined the course conducted by the opposite parties 2 and 3 on payment of Rs.900/- at Rs.300/- per head. No fee was, therefore, collected by the first opposite party school. The swimming course was conducted by the second opposite party and the third opposite party. On inquiry, the first opposite party understands that on 28-4-93 the complainants' son had drowned in the swimming pool. The first opposite party is not liable on any ground.