JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainant who is a minor child, took admission in pre-school education in a Day Care facility namely Brats and Cuties School in Sector-11 of Dwarka.  On 26.12.2013, the father of the child was informed at about 03:00 pm that the child had sustained injuries and was admitted in a hospital in Sector-12 of Dwarka.  On reaching the hospital, he found that the child had suffered grievous injuries.  The child was discharged from the hospital on 31.12.2013 but required further treatment at Bensups Hospital as well as at Paras Hospital.  He was also treated at several other hospitals but, he lost partial vision in his left eye.  Alleging negligence on the part of the OP in taking care of the complainant, he is before this Commission through his father as his next friend, seeking compensation to the extent of Rs.3 Crores. 

2.      The complaint has been opposed by the OP which has denied any negligence on its part in taking care of the child, though it has not disputed that the child was in the school at the time he sustained injuries.  It is stated in the written version filed by the OP that the child Master Rehan arrived at the Day Care facility at about 02:35 pm on 26.12.2013 and had his lunch in the lunch room on the first floor.  Thereafter, the children were escorted to the ground floor by a maid in group of 5-6 children.  It is further alleged that Master Rehan, alongwith another child, left ahead of the group and immediately held on to the railing of the first floor stairs after the platform constructed between the stairs of the first floor and ground floor, at a height of about 4.5 ft. from the ground floor.  The child, playfully tried to jump with the help of the railing but lost control and fell on the floor.  The maid immediately picked him up and he was taken to Bensups Hospital.  It is also alleged that the OP has paid a sum of Rs.2,02,094/- to the hospital for the medical expenses of the child. 

3.      The complainant has filed the affidavit of Sh. Raman Kataria, father of the child, who admittedly was not present in the school at the time the child sustained injuries and therefore, could have no personal knowledge of the manner in which the child had sustained the said injuries.  The OP has filed affidavit of Mr. Deven Khullar, Chairman of the School who also was not present in the school at the time of this incident and therefore, had no personal knowledge of the matter.  The OP has also filed the affidavit of Dr. Vaibhav Sharma who is an Eye Specialist, but has no personal knowledge of the manner in which the child sustained injuries. 

4.      When this matter came up for hearing on 23.03.2017, it transpired during the course of hearing that though a maid was accompanying the children when they were being taken from the first floor to the ground floor though a staircase, her affidavit had not been filed.  The OP was therefore, directed to file her affidavit and the complainant was given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. 

5.      In her affidavit, the maid Smt. Asha has inter-alia stated that after the complainant had lunch in the lunch room on the first floor, she used to take them in small group of 5-6 children to the ground floor for changing their clothes.  On 26.12.2013, she took the complainant in a small group of 5-6 children.  She further stated that the complainant, after reaching the platform in between the middle of the stairs connecting first floor and ground floor at a height of about 4.5 ft. from the ground floor, suddenly broke away from the group and held to the railings of the stairs.  He tried to jump with the help of the railings.  She tried to hold him back while managing other children but the complainant child lost control and fell on the floor.  She immediately picked him up and he was immediately taken to Bensups Hospital in Sector-12 of Dwarka.  It transpires from her examination that she was leading the group of 5-6 children and the complainant was the second child from the top, meaning thereby that while leading the children from the first floor to the ground floor, she was not in a position to see the children when he climbed the railing in the staircase.  It is quite possible that had she been at the end of the group of children, she would have noticed the complainant trying to climb the railing in the staircase and would have been able to prevent him from doing so.  Had she been behind the complainant, but ahead of the last child, even then she would have been in a position to prevent the complainant from climbing the railing.  But, since she was leading the group of children, she was not in a position to notice the complainant when he playfully climbed the railing and tried to jump to the ground floor through the railing.  However, Smt. Asha cannot be said to be negligent only because she was leading the group of children instead of remaining behind the last child in the group.  In the ordinary course of events, a person escorting a group of children, would lead them and not follow them from behind, the purpose being to guide the children to the proper place.  Therefore, the OP cannot be said to be negligent in rendering services merely because Smt. Asha was leading the group of children instead of remaining behind them in order to watch them from behind. 

6.      It is suggested by the learned counsel for the complainant that two maids could have accompanied the group of children; one of them leading the children and the other remaining behind them in order to watch their activities and ensure that no untoward incident happens.  It can hardly be disputed that had there been two maids accompanying the children, there would have been stricter supervision and control of the children, while coming down from the first floor to the ground floor through the staircase, but the OP cannot be said to be negligent in rendering services merely because instead of two maids, only one was deputed to accompany a group of 5-6 children.  It has to be kept in mind that it was a small group of 5-6 children who were going through the staircase from the first floor to the ground floor and were not going on an outward journey.  Therefore, there was no occasion for the school authorities to take extra precaution and depute more than one maids for a small group of 5-6 children going through the staircase.  As noted earlier, there was a railing fixed by the school in the staircase and had the complainant not climbed the railing all of a sudden and not tried to jump to the ground floor, this unfortunate incident would not have happened. But, the facts and circumstances of the case do not make out a case of negligence on the part of the OP in rendering services to the complainant. 

7.      Though there is a variation in the plea taken in the written version and the deposition of Smt. Asha, with respect of the position of the complainant in the group, at the time the children were coming down, the said variation is of no consequence since in either case, neither the maid nor the OP can be said to be negligent.

8.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, the consumer complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.