SURAT CITY GYMKHANA Vs. AMRITABEN TARUNBHAI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First Appeal No.170 of 2012 challenges the order dated 21.2.2012 passed by Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (State Commission) in Consumer Complaint No.3 of 2006 and has been filed under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the appellants/opponents - Surat City Gymkhana, a registered Trust and society.

(2.) Facts relevant to the appeal are as follows. Sri Tarun Sharma, husband of respondent complainant 1 and father of respondent complainants 2 & 3, was a life member of appellant opposite party no. 1 and by virtue of this, his wife and children were also members of the said organization. This organization provides amenities for swimming and various sports activities to its members. On 16.12005, Tarun Sharma was at the club as usual. However, on this fateful morning, he tumbled on the ground while on his morning walk. In the absence of any staff/official of the Club, it was left to one other member to take him in his car to Mahavir Heart Institute Hospital, some 5-6 km. away ataround 7.30 a.m. Dr. Apurva Vasavada at the hospital opined that there had been brain damage. So, Dr. Apte, a neurologist was consulted who post-examination, confirmed brain damage. On 17.12005 at 45 p.m., doctors of Mahavir Hospital declared him dead.

(3.) This complaint was contested before the state commission. The appellants opposite parties 1 to 3 submitted that their organization was a trust, a society formed by and for its members and thus no individual responsibility could be fixed on its officials. Further, it was a non-commercial, non-profit, non-business organization, run by and for the benefit of its members. As such, the complainant member was not a consumer (and by implication the organization could not be considered a service provider). The organization was registered as a Public Trust and had taken a Public Liability Non Industrial Risk policy with National insurance Corporation Ltd. for Rs.25 lakh.