Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1445/2010

Dayanand University through Principal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hari Om Gupta - Opp.Party(s)

Rahul Pareek

02 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1445 /2010

 

Dayanand Mahavidlaya, Beawar Road, Ajmer through Principal & ors.

 

Vs.

 

Hariom Gupta & ors. R/o 147/11, New Colony, Subhash Nagar, Tower Road, Ajmer.

 

 

Date of Order 2.11.2015

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr.Deepak Pareek counsel for the appellant

Mr.D.M.Mathur counsel for respondents

 

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 7.5.2010 of the District Consumer Forum, Ajmer by which the complaint was allowed.

 

The contention of the appellant is that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. Mr.Asgar Ali and Sunil Pal, who are the trained life guards were there. Sunil Pal has taken Anuj Gupta, the son of the appellant from the water. He was immediately given primary treatment and thereafter shifted to hospital. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

 

Per contra the respondent has submitted that Asgar Ali and Sunil Pal were not the trained life safeguards. There was deficiency of service on the part of the appellant as they have not provided any life saving and safety precaution and due to which his son had died.

 

Heard the learned counsels for the parties . Perused the impugned order as well as the original record of the case.

3

 

The only contention of the appellant is that they are not deficient in service as they were provided safety measures and life safeguards were there. It is not in dispute that District Administration has also enquired in to the matter and it has been brought on record that Asgar Ali was not a trained life safeguard so also Sunil Pal and no affidavit of Sunil Pal has been submitted to fortified the contention of the respondent that he save the child from water .

 

From evidence it is apparent that no trained life safeguards were there and no other safety measures were undertaken by the respondent and due to negligence on the part of the respondent his son had died. Further nothing has been shown that there was any life saving mechanics or equipments available on the pool side. Thus, on the facts and circumstances mentioned above the court below has rightly held that there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the respondent as a result of which the deceased has drowned in the swimming pool and later on died. The appellants were also liable for not providing necessary facilities like experienced coaches, life safeguards etc. The respondent has also relied upon IV (2005) CPJ 659 Vimal Chandra D.Desai Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation & ors., I (2010) CPJ 504 K.M.Indoria &

4

 

ors. Vs. Zila Krida Parishad,Jaipur , IV (2007) CPJ 166 (NC) Corporation of the city of Belgaum Vs. Siddangouda Annappagouda Patil , III (1995) CPJ 97 (NC) Shashikant Krishanaji Dole Vs. Shikshan Prasarak Mandali & ors.

 

Thus, on the facts and circumstance of the case the court below has rightly appreciated the evidence and held that the appellants were negligent and deficient in service. No interference is needed. The appeal is dismissed.

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm