District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Sambalpur.
C. D. Case No. 86 of 2013
1.Malati Sahoo w/o Suhash Chandra Sahoo
Aged 35 years caste chasa, occupation: House wife.
R/o- Sersuantal Chowk, H/o- Gudesingha,
Po- Kukudapali, Ps- Sason, Tahl- Maneswar, Dist- Sambalpur
2.Sri Subash Chandra sahoo, Aged about 43 years
s/o late Harihar Sahoo, Caste -chasa, occupation
Business.
R/o- Sersuantal Chowk, H/o- Gudesingha,
Po- Kukudapali, Ps- Sason, Tahl- Maneswar,
Dist- Sambalpur ………………................ Petitioner.
Versus
1) The principal Sandilya College of Science &
Commerce, Deheripali, PO; Budharaja, P.S. Ainthapali
Tahasil & District : Sambalpur.
2) Sri K.C.Barik (Barik Sir), Chairman, Sandalya College
Of Science & Commerce, Deheripali, PO: Budharaja
PS: Ainthapali, Tahasil & District:-Sambalpur. …………………………………..Opp.Party
For Complainants : D.C.Panda
For O.P. 1 : Sri P.K.Padhan and associates
PRESENT: SHRI A.P. MUND, PRESIDENT,
SMT. S. TRIPATHY, MEMBER,
SHRI K.D. DASH, MEMBER,
Date of Order: 09/05/2019
SHRI A.P. MUND, PRESIDENT
The petitioners submit as follows:-
1) The petitioners are Hindu by religion and belongs to Chasa Caste and are guided by Hindu succession Act, 1956.
2) The petitioner No.1 is the mother of Late Payal Sahu and she is the Class-1 heir of her deceased daughter.
3) According to the petitioners, they are the consumers of Sandilya College of Science and Commerce by virtue of having paid fees for taking admission in Science Stream of Plus 2(two) course of their daughter named Payal Sahoo (here in after called deceased). The said deceased who was reading in the hostel provided by the college of the OP, in the session 2011-12 and 12-13 and the complainants have paid installments of Rs.1,30,000/- course fee (which includes total tuition fees as well as total Hostel Charges) as a residential student.
4) Deceased daughter of the petitioners, was staying in the College Hostel at Dhankauda during her study session.
5) On 20.3.2013 the minor daughter of the petitioners had gone to G.M.College to appear in the Examinition without escort or any identifying lecturer provided by the O.P. which expose deficiency in service of the O.Ps.
6) On 20.03.2013 at about 2.30 P.M. the petitioner No. 2 got a phone call from a friend of his daughter that Payal Sahu is serious and she asked me to reach soon. The petitioner No.2 reached the hostel at Dhankauda at once and found his daughter unconscious by that time. There were none in the hostel like warden, metron or superintendent except the students. The petitioner No.2 immediately took his daughter along with the two friends of her daughter to the Hospital and in the hospital the doctor examined and declared her brought dead due to the negligence of the College management.
7) The petitioner further avers that deceased died due to the negligence of the College management.
8)The petitioner further avers that the O.Ps have violated the Orissa Education Code ( Chapter IX hostel and Mess ) and acts and rules, Department of Higher Education Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private Junior College and Rules of Higher Education.
9) As per the post-mortem report the petitioner’s daughter has consumed 20 tablets of choloroquin which leads to death.
In this context, according to the petitioner; following negligence in services are apparent:
Why the petitioners minor daughter was not provided with the escort from the O.Ps
hostel while she was going to the G.M. College to appear in the examination.
Why the O.Ps had not deputed a identifying staff from their College?
Why the superintendent of the college hostel/ Chairman of the college didnot intimate
the incidentto the petitioners at once ?
How the petitioner’s daughter got 20 tablets of chloroquin in the hostel which create questionof doubt ?
Who was the authorised superintendent / wardenof the hostel by that time ?
Who has escorted the unconscious daughter of the petitioners from the hostel to the hospital ?
Who has given chlorquin to thepetitioner’s daughter.
On the basis of the above averments prays that the O.Ps be called to give their explanation and O.Ps be ordered to pay a sum of Rs.19,95,000/-(Rupees nineteen lakhs ninenty five thousand ) as compensation towards the cost and loss of life.
List documents filed by Complainant:-
- Money receipt 8 nos.
- College card of Payal Sahoo
- Post Mortem report.
- Death Certificate
- College manual.
The Opposite Parties filed their written statement as follows:-
As regards the allegations contended in Para 1,2and 3 of the petition it is submitted that the petitioner is not a consumer of the Opposite Party. However admitted that the daughter of the petitioner namely payal sahoo was reading in O.Ps College in session 2011-12 and 2012-13 and was a residential students, but it is false to say that the petitioner has paid grand total of Rs.1,52,000/- which includes tuition fees as well as total hostel charges.
As regards the allegation made in Para 4 of the petition allegation that on 20.03.2013 the minor daughter of the petitioner had gone to G.M. College to appear in the examination without escort or identifying lecturer by the O.Ps are not true and hence denied. It is submitted here that on the date of incident deceased had come to G.M. College in the college bus along with other students, lecturer and other staffs of the college to G.M. College to appear in the examination.
The allegation made in Para 5 of the petition that on 20.03.2013 at about 2.00 PM the petitioner got a phone call from a friend of his daughter that Payal Sahoo is serious and she asked me to reach soon and that the petitioner reached to the Hostel at Dhankaud at once and found his daughter was unconscious by that time and that there were none in the hostel like warden, matron, or superintendent except the students are not true and hence denied. Further allegation that the petitioner immediately took her daughter along with the two friends of her daughter to the hospital and in the hospital the doctor examined and declared her dead due to the negligence of the college management are not true and hence denied.
The O.P.’s further avers that Miss. Payal Sahoo while adopting wrong /illegal means/ path in the examination hall had been caught raid handed by the invigilator of G.M. College and she had been booked under malpractice. However after examination was over; all other students came back to the bus except Payal sahoo, so immediately the lecturer deputed with the students searched Miss. Payal Sahoo but did not find her. On enquiry they were confirmed that Payal Sahoo left the examination hall. So immediately Sri Binod Bihari Panda, Lecturer, informed the father of the girl disclosing the thing of booking of Payal Sahoo in malpractice as well as leaving of examination hall and also the fact of not reaching of Payal Sahoo at hostel. The petitioner arrived at the hospital. In spite of best efforts of the Doctor of the hospital Miss Payal did not survive and was declared dead by the Doctor.
The allegation made in Para 6 of the petition that the daughter of the petitioner died due to the negligence of the college management are not true and hence denied.
Payal Sahoo as stated earlier was very week in her study and while reading in the Opposite party’s Institution in spite of best effort of the teaching staffs she was unable to catch the subjects properly.
The O.P.’s further avers that the question of getting and consuming of choloruin tablets inside the hostel premises is impossible since the hostel is run with active supervision. The deceased must have consumed the alleged tablet, if any, outside the hostel premises. The O.Ps in no way negligent or responsible.`
No documents were filed by the O.P.’s
Heard arguments advanced by rival parties. Went through the documents thoroughly. Went through the case law reported in (d2014) (1) Supreme Court cases 384, which is the main guiding factor in coming to a just decision in this case. There was no emphatic denial substantiated with case law that the complainants were not consumers, hence the petitioners are consumers of the O.P.’S.
From the rival contentions the following issues arose in this case which are to be addressed. They are:-
Is the OP’ liable on count of negligence towards the deceased student.
Whether the deceased could have been saved by the timely and prompt intervention by the college/hostel superintendentor other staff .
Whether theaccompanying staff for examinationguilty of allowing the deceased student to escape from the examination hall unescorted.
If the OP’s are deficienthow thequantum of compensation to be calculated.
The issue No.1 is answered as follows:-
The allegation of complainant (who are the parents of the deceased Payal Sahoo are as follows:-
- She was a minor and she went to the examination hall without escort.
- She was expelled from Exam. For malpractice.
- She came back to the college hostel in an auto without being escorted.
- On the way back to hostel she purchased chloroquine tablets and consumed it.
- She was not attended promptly as there were no hostel staff in attendance.
- She was brought to the hospital by the friends, and complainant no. 2; where she was declared brought dead. From this the claimant surmised that the OP’s were grossly negligent and did not act prudently.
All the above points were refused by the O.Ps..Their contention is :-
a) The staff escorted and identified each students at the examination hall.
b) As they were not allowed inside the hall they stayed at a distance outside the examination hall.
c) They had no knowledge that deceased Payal Sahu was expelled and she left the examination hall early.
d) After the examination was over, they searched for Payal sahu all over. After hearing from college that Payal Sahu is back in hostel, they escorted the other students to the hostel.
e) When the condition of payal Sahu deteriorated , they escorted her to the hospital. Hence on the above premises they submitted they gave proper service acted as per the situation dicated. To come to a conclusion on rival claims we took the help of the police reports lin the U.D.Case.
The examining doctor has given a statement that on 20.08.2013 the deceased was brought to the hospital accompanied by her father.
The enquiry U/s 161 Cr.P.C further stated that “....................she was asked to leave the examination centre. Feeling upset............ she came out by an auto. On the way she bought some chlorquine tablets and consumed it. She reached the hostel and went to sleep and she stated that she was feeling uneasy. Her friend telephoned her father. Her father arrived at the hostel and with the help of her friends and hostel ward boy, they took her to the District Head quarter Hospital. On the way she expired.
The above report which is an independent one, nails the lie of the O.Ps. The O.Ps were thoroughly negligent on all counts. They have not taken due care as expected of them. Weighed on the scale of service the OP’s failed miserably to give proper service and they have violated the Education Code. Hence issue No. 1 is answered against the O.P’s .
Issue No 3 is answered as follows :-
The complainant alleges that the college has (1) not nominated a warded/ hostel superintendent / Asst. Superintendent.
(2) There was no house allotted to the warden near the ladies hostel. This is in gross violation of the guideline given under the Education Code.
(3) The college has no first aid facility or doctor available though it boasts of intake of 120 students..
(4) The college did not provide any transport facility for carrying the decease to the hospital.
(5) No responsible person came forward to attend on the deceased when her condition deteriorated.
The O.P’s answer is a simple denial without naming out the name of the warden or other staffs as per guidelines. They claimed that their staffs accompanied the deceased to the hospital without naming them. They could have filed affidavits of staff accompanying to substantiate their case.
The Police report is very negative. The O.Ps are negligent and flouted rules and guidelines under the Orissa Education code.
The college was flouting the above guideline issued with impunity.
It can be safely held that the O.P’s simply minting money by collecting fees. But they were not providing any basic facilities.
Had there been an responsible superintendent the matter would not have deterionated to the extent of death. At least he could have asked and could have taken some necessary enquiry as to why and how the deceased came back early. Her friends could have contacted the superintendent when the deceased complained of uneasiness. On being warned of the deteriorating situation the Superintendent could have taken immediate steps.
Hence the allegation of the complainant No. II that he was informed by the friends of the deceased sticks like a glue.
Hence we hold that from the circumstances narrated above, the O.Ps had no superintendent and no responsible staff to look after the college.
On this count also the O.P.s are guilty and issue no. 3 is answered against them.
Issue No.2 is answered as follows:-
The police enquiry report is very specific. Beside as per report and contention , the deceased went out of the examination hall, hired an auto and went back to the hostel. Had there been a vigilant staff, then he could have marked her departure of the deceased from the hall. The deceased went all alone.
This speaks volumes about the callousness of the college. Hence issue No.2 is allowed in favour of the complainant.
Issue No.4 is answered as follows:-
This is the main crux of the problem. To arrive of a just compensation without enriching the complainants.
The cited case is very helpful which furnishes guidelines and has a detailed guideline. The case relates to medical negligence leading to death. In this case it is negligence leading to death/suicide.
The facts are nearly similar. For negligence of the staff of the O.P. No. 1, the death happened.
The calculation sheet provided by the Advocate for the petitioner dated 17.12.15 is very precise and as per the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balram Prasad Vrs. Kunal Suha and others case.
The O.P’s have filed no objection only contention is that the claim is very excessive without following any principle and utility the multiplier method of 18 years.
We have given conscious time and went through the calculation sheet. The petitioner has used multiplier method (which is approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court) reduced his claim to fit into the jurisdiction applicable to this forum. Thereby he has forfeited his right to a higher claim.
The deceased was a good girl, though she was not an excellent students, as per the mark sheet furnished, she could have achieved some distinction in her carrier later on. People who are less educated can even become engineers even with little perseverance, guidance and dedication.
The petitioners have pegged the deceased’s earning as a daily labourer to bring the case within this forum’s pecuniary jurisdiction. Though demeaning of the qualification of the deceased; we agree with the calculation.
Hence we order that the O.Ps are guilty of providing deficiency in service and negligent towards the deceased who was in their charge at the time of death. We hold them guilty of not preventing the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide.
Hence the claim of petitioner to the amount of Rs.19, 95,000/- is allowed.
The O.ps are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount within a period of 30 days from the date of order of this case otherwise it will carry a positive interest of 12% from the date of order till payment.
Sd/-
SHRI A.P.MUND
Sd/- PRESIDENT.
SMT S.TRIPATHY. Member I agree.
Sd/- Sd/-
SHRI K.D.DASH. Member I agree. Dictated and corrected by me.
PRESIDENT
