Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/435/2018

Mrs. Simrit Jagdev - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Chandigarh Golf Club - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Chandgothia

25 Jul 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/435/2018
Date of Institution	:	04/09/2018
Date of Decision	:	25/07/2019

 

 

1.     Mrs. Simrit Jagdev d/o Mahavir Singh Jagdev, House No.1101, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

2.     Master Ranveer Singh s/o Mrs. Simrit Jagdev, House No.1101, Sector 8C, Chandigarh, through her mother and natural guardian Mrs. Simrit Jagdev.

… Complainants

V E R S U S

1.     M/s Chandigarh Golf Club, Near Panjab Raj Bhawan, Sector 6, Chandigarh through its Manager.

2.     Lt. Gen. B.S. Takhar, PVSM, VSM, (Golf Club Membership No.990) House No.1079, Sector 36C, Chandigarh.

3.     Chandigarh UT Administration through the Deputy Commissioner, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                    

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Counsel for complainants
	:	Sh. Rakesh K. Sharma, Counsel for OP-1
	:	Ms. Jasneet Kaur, Counsel for OP-2
	:	Sh. Ashok Gautam, Govt. Pleader for OP-3.

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         The long and short of the allegations are, complainant No.1 alongwith her relatives happens to be a member of OP-1 Golf Club. The dependents of the complainant No.1 are also allowed to avail the service in the Golf Club, Chandigarh inclusive of swimming pool and gymnasium etc. The case is, club is being presently manned by OP-1 and it was leased out by OP-3 to OP-1.  Complainant No.1 is an NRI and complainant No.2 her son, aged about 5 years, is a British citizen by birth.  Maintained, complainant No.1 had come to Chandigarh on annual visit to her maternal home and on 4.8.2018 she alongwith complainant No.2 went to OP-1 for using the club swimming pool.  Complainant No.2 was accompanied by his aunt (mausi), Mrs. Simran Jagdev.  At around 6:15 p.m. a loud shriek of the child was heard.  Actually a large piece of a broken glass had penetrated the right ankle of complainant No.2 from the back and from there blood had oozed out.  On inspection a broken drinking glass was found near the swimming pool which had caused the wound of 4 x 2 x .75 depth.  It was a grievous injury. CCTV footage was also seen which showed negligence on the part of OPs and OP-2 had kept the broken glass there.  Alleged there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  Hence, the present consumer complaint praying for compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-; Rs.50,000/- as punitive damages; directing OP-1 to stop operating the swimming pool as it is proved to be hazardous to life and pay Rs.35,000/- as litigation expenses.
2.         OPs contested the consumer complaint and filed their written replies. 
3.         Defence of OP-1 is of denial. Per its written reply, complainant No.2 happens to be a child aged five years who started running to take a dip in the swimming pool. The glass was left by OP-2, another member of the club, which hit the child and as a result thereof, it was broken and caused the injury.  Even the child had not noticed the injury, but, it was noticed by the officials of OP-1 and first aid was given on the spot.  As a matter of fact, there was no negligence on the part of OP-1 as the child was left alone who came running from the room and complainant No.1 had failed to take parental care of her child, aged five years, and she herself is responsible for the injury.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
4.         OP-2 also corroborated the same facts on the line which were put forth in the reply of OP-1.  OP-2 on humanitarian grounds had offered to reimburse the medical bill of the treatment of complainant No.2, but, complainant No.1 did not produce the bill.  It is also the case, OP-2 is not the service provider and rather a member of the same club, therefore, consumer complaint against him is not maintainable.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
5.         OP-3 in its separate written reply denied any negligence on its part as it had leased out the club to OP-1 and which was to be manned even for the purpose of safety by OP-1. Prayed, OP-3 was unnecessarily joined in the present consumer complaint.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
6.         Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
7.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
8.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After scanning of record, our findings are as under:-
9.         A perusal of the pleadings of the parties shows, complainant No.2, a child aged five years, needed the care of his parents at this juncture of his life.  For a child aged five years, parental care and caution are required. Nevertheless, it is not the case, complainant No.1 had accompanied complainant No.2 to the swimming pool.
10.         A perusal of the pleadings and evidence further shows, glass allegedly kept there is visible with the naked eye and had complainant No.2 been accompanied by a guardian or his parents, there was no likelihood of the said accident taking place.  Even otherwise, while walking on road, children are crafty by nature and there are so many roadblocks and the child does need parental care while going to the swimming pool or on the road. 
11.         The case of the complainant was complainant No.2 was accompanied by his aunt
    Mrs. Simran Jagdev to take care of him. In the situation the version of the custodian of the child, Mrs. Simran Jagdev, aunt of complainant No.2 was very material. However, her affidavit, who was allegedly an eye witness has not been produced on record to say glass was not visible and there was negligence on the part of the OPs.  In the absence of her affidavit, version of OPs appears to be convincing and believable that the child was all alone and child being crafty in nature came running with a view to swim in the swimming pool and his foot tripped with the glass which was broken and caused injury to him.  Even the said injury was not noticed by complainant No.2 and the moment it came to the notice of the employees of OP-1, first aid was given.  In the absence of parental care to the child, finding cannot be recorded that there was any negligence on the part of the OPs.
12.         It is also not the case, as per terms and conditions, glass could not be kept by the side of the pool by its users.  No such terms and conditions were placed on record by the complainant to show deficiency in service or negligence on the part of OP-1.
13.         Perusal of the record shows, treatment was taken in Chaitanya Hospital and nature of injury noticed was not opined to be grievous in nature so as to corroborate the version of the complainant.
14.         Not only this, so much so, no evidence has been produced on record by complainant No.1, in the form of medical bills, how much amount was spent by her in the treatment of the child while the claim put forth was Rs.4.00 lakh.  What is the base to raise such claim is not understandable.  Having regard to the natural course of events, since children are crafty by nature and have to be taken care of by the guardians/parents or somebody else, such like injuries could also be caused on the roads where there are sometimes roadblocks by way of stone and slip.  In such a scenario, it is a case of accident and the liability cannot be fastened upon OP-1. Either such a child should not have been taken to the swimming pool by the parents or if taken then it was their duty to take care of the child so that he is not hit with any glass kept over there.  Now the baby of lapses cannot be passed on to OP-1.
15.         The complainant has arrayed OP-2 in the present consumer complaint and he is not a service provider in the Golf Club to the complainants as he stands on equal footing with complainant No.1, being a member.  Complainant No.1 does not enjoy any superior right in comparison to another member say OP-2 as he also happened to be there in the same capacity of member of Golf Club as that of the complainant. Neither any money was paid to OP-2 nor any service was to be rendered by OP-2 in the club, therefore, he could not have been arrayed as such in the present consumer complaint. 
16.         Turning to the case of OP-3, it happened to be the lessor of the Golf Club, which was leased out to OP-1. There were certain terms and conditions of the lease deed and the activity inside the Golf Club has to be managed and looked after by OP-1.  Therefore, OP-3 has also been unnecessarily arrayed as a party to the present consumer complaint.
17.         Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, we do not find there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Accordingly, the present consumer complaint being meritless is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
18.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
25/07/2019	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President