SHASHIKANT KRISHANAJI DOLE Vs. SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This order will dispose of the above three appeals as all of them have arisen out of the same order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra at Bombay in Complaint Case No. 248 of 1991. That complaint was filed by Shri Shashikant K. Dole and his wife, Smt. Sarika Shashikant Dole (Appellants in Appeal No. 134 of 1993) who are the parents of Kedar deceased. Shikshana Prasarka Mandli, Pune (Appellant in F.A. No. 149) who was arrayed as opposite party No. 1 while Mahesh Vasant Date (Appellant in appeal No. 141/93 had been arrayed as opposite party No. 2) in the complaint. By the impugned order the State Commission held opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 liable to pay to the complainants Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation towards the loss of life of their only child, Kedar. The amount was ordered to be paid within 30 days from the date of the order failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum till realisation. Feeling aggrieved of that order the complainant as well as the opposite parties have filed these three appeals. Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 dispute the liability to pay compensation while the claimants pray for enhancement of the compensation.

(2.) According to the allegations made in the complaint, Kedar was the only child to the complainants. The opposite party No. 1 is a registered Public Trust and owns a swimming pool situated on the campus of S.P. Mahavidyalaya, Pune. Opposite Party No. 2 was one of the trainer/coach in the employment of the opposite party No. 1 at the swimming pool. Opposite Party No. 1 had offered swimming facilities to the public at large on payment of fees. The opposite party No. 1 used to conduct winter and summer training camps to train boys in swimming. On 3rd May, 1991, the complainants had enrolled their son Kedar for a training camp to learn swimming and had paid Rs. 190/- for the same as fees to the opposite party No. 1. The training of Kedar commenced on 10th May, 1991, under the guidance of opposite party No. 2. Kedar met with his death on 3rd June, 1991 at about 9.30 a.m. by drowning in the swimming pool due to the negligence of the trainer. It was further alleged that Kedar was sound in health and was not suffering from any illness on the date of death. The incident was witnessed by Sidharth, cousin of Kedar, who was also swimming in the same pool at the relevant time. According to the complainants there was serious deficiency in the services of the opposite parties and they are liable to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- towards compensation for the loss of life of their child.

(3.) The opposite parties contested the complaint and filed separate counters. Opposite party No. 1 pleaded that for the alleged incidents, the replying opposite party who was in no way connected and under no circumstances, is liable for the payment of any amount as compensation as there is no cause of action against it. It was admitted that it has its own swimming tank in the campus of S.P. College, Pune and it is run by it but the services of opposite party No. 2 were not being made available by the replying opposite party at its swimming tank alongwith the other services and facilities to the public at large. The enrolment of Kedar Shashikant Dole in the swimming training camp and the receipt of Rs.190/- was admitted, but it was pleaded that the replying opposite party did not offer or assure standard and full fledged services and facilities of swimming in their tank alongwith the services of opposite party No. 2 as trainer for the son. The incident of the death of Kedar on 3rd June, 1991 in the swimming pool was not disputed. It was alleged that the opposite party No. 2 was a qualified trainer and coach. The carelessness and negligence in making available standard services at the swimming pool was denied. Other allegations of the complainants about the standards of the swimming pool or the non-availability of facilities in the swimming pool in the emergency cases were also denied. It was further pleaded that for the swimming coaching camp of April-May-June, 1991, 50 coaches were appointed and one of them was opposite party No. 2 for the batch between 9.00 a.m. to 9.50 a.m. there were in all 16 coaches for the batch and one of them was opposite party No. 2.