PARADEEP PORT TRUST Vs. CHUNILATA MOHANTY & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 19.02.2016, passed by the Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in CD Case No. 16/2003, vide which, the said complaint filed by the respondent No. 1, was allowed.

(2.) The facts of the case are that Subrat Kumar Mohanty aged 21 years, son of the complainant Smt. Chunilata Mohanty, who was pursuing his studies as a student of Electrician Trade came to the residential quarter of the complainant situated at G.J.A.I. Colony, Paradeep to spend his vacation. On 09.08.2002, he went for boating to Paradeep Port Boating Club alongwith two friends. It is alleged that they were not supplied any life-safety jackets and there were no motor tubes available on both sides of the boat. At about 1:00 PM, when the three boys tried to return towards the starting point, the boat became imbalanced and capsized, as a result of which the three boys fell into water. The complainant's son got drowned in the incident and died, while his two friends narrowly escaped, as they were acquainted with swimming. The dead body of the deceased Subrat Kumar Mohanty was recovered after about one hour by the personnel of the CISF and sent to B.M. Hospital, where the doctors declared him dead. The medical officer, who conducted autopsy opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia because of water getting into the lungs. The complainant alleged in the consumer complaint that the incident occurred due to negligent and callous attitude of the OPs, which amounted to deficiency in service, as there was no sufficient life-saving mechanism equipment available at the boating club. The complainant sought directions to the OPs to pay compensation of 8 lakhs to the complainant for the gross deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, as she had lost her beloved son at young age. In the said complaint, the petitioner Paradeep Port Trust has been arrayed as Opposite Party (OP-1), whereas the Tourism and Infrastructure Development Council (TIDC), Orissa to whom the premises had been leased out for running the same, has been made OP-2.

(3.) The Appellant/OP-1 Paradeep Port Trust filed their reply to the complaint saying that they had handed over the management of the Boat Club to OP-2, Tourism and Infrastructure Development Council (TIDC) and hence, they had no connection with the day-to-day affairs of the Boat Club. There was no deficiency in service, therefore, on their part. As per the documents placed on record, the Paradeep Port Trust had issued notice on 25.01.2001, inviting sealed quotations from experienced organisations/persons to operate the Boat Club alongwith Open Air Restaurant for a period of 6 years, in response to which, the TIDC was the only bidder, who offered to run the said facility. Vide letter dated 20.03.2001, the operation of the Boat Club alongwith the restaurant had been handed over to the TIDC for a period of six years.