Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah, President &
Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member
VADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION KHANDERAO MARKET, VADODARA
(THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER, VADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION) & ORS.—Appellants
versus
PURSHOTTAM V. MURJANI & ORS.—Respondents
First Appeal Nos. 464, 488 of 2002, First Appeal Nos. 197, 61 to 77, 210, 211, 212 to 226 of
2003 and First Appeal Nos. 228 to 300 of 2004 —Decided on 2.11.2006
For the Appellant (Vadodara Municipal Corporation) :Mr. A.N. Haksar, Senior Advocate with
Mr. K.S. Nagra, Mr. V. Jain and Ms. Reeta Mishra, Advocates.
For the Respondent (Ripple Aqua Sports):Mr. S. Sanyal, Advocate for Mr. R.S. Suri,
Advocate.
For the Original Complainants : Mr. K.L. Janjani, Mr. V.N. Tiwari and Mr. P.K. Singh,
Advocates.
For the Insurance Company :Mr. P.K. Seth, Advocate.
The Corporation and the contractor were jointly and severally liable for the accident. The Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the Corporation up to a limit of Rs. 1 lakh per person and Rs. 80 lakh in aggregate.
Headnote:
BOAT CAPSIZE - LIABILITY OF CORPORATION - LIABILITY OF CONTRACTOR - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - INTERPRETATION OF INSURANCE POLICY - ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
On 11.8.1993, a boat capsized in Sursagar Lake, Vadodara, resulting in the death of 22 passengers. The boat was operated by Ripple Aqua Sports under a contract with the Vadodara Municipal Corporation. The passengers had purchased tickets for a joy ride. The boat had a capacity of 20 passengers, but 38 passengers were accommodated. The Corporation and the contractor were held jointly and severally liable for the accident. The Insurance Company, which had issued a liability insurance policy to the contractor, was directed to indemnify the Corporation up to a limit of Rs. 1 lakh per person and Rs. 80 lakh in aggregate.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Corporation was liable for the accident as it had a statutory duty to keep constant vigil and ensure the safety of passengers. The contractor was also held liable for negligence in operating the boat in excess of its capacity and not providing adequate safety equipment. The Insurance Company was held liable to pay Rs. 20 lakh for each accident and Rs. 80 lakh in aggregate, as per the terms of the insurance policy.
Issues: 1. Whether the Corporation was liable for the accident? 2. Whether the contractor was liable for the accident? 3. Whether the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the Corporation? 4. Whether the compensation awarded by the State Commission was adequate?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Corporation was liable for the accident as it had a statutory duty to keep constant vigil and ensure the safety of passengers. 2. The contractor was also held liable for negligence in operating the boat in excess of its capacity and not providing adequate safety equipment. 3. The Insurance Company was held liable to pay Rs. 20 lakh for each accident and Rs. 80 lakh in aggregate, as per the terms of the insurance policy.
Final Decision: The Court partly allowed the appeals filed by the complainants and enhanced the compensation awarded by the State Commission. The Court also directed the Corporation to pay the balance of compensation to the complainants within eight weeks from the date of the order.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah, President-The undisputed facts as found by the State Commission are:
There is a lake known as 'Sursagar Lake' near the city of Vadodara which has been under the control and management of opposite party No. 1-Vadodara Municpal Corporation (hereafter referred to as the Corporation). Initially, it started the activity of plying boats for joy rides and boating club, but subsequently for the period commencing from 26.9.92, it entrusted the activity of plying boats to opposite party No. 2 - Shri Patheja of Ripple Aqua Sports (hereinafter referred to as the Aqua Sports) under a contract. The Corporation is, admittedly, having consideration from the Aqua Sports for carrying on the activity of recreation and/or entertaining the citizens/passengers by way of boat rides/joy rides in the boat(s) provided by the opposite party No. 1, Corporation to the Aqua Sports.
2. Under the contract entered into between the opposite party No. 1 and 2, appropriate cover of insurance was to be taken by the Aqua Sports and it had taken an insurance policy in question from the opposite party No. 3-M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company).
3. On the fateful day, i.e. 11.8.1993, being a public holiday on account of the holy festival of Janmashthami, many inhabitants of the city of Vadodara had gone for boat ride at the Sursagar Lake. One Mr. Panikar, Supervisor of the Aqua Sports issued entry tickets to the passengers and each ticket was issued for a consideration of Rs. 3 per passenger. Admittedly, the capacity of the boat was of 20 passengers and on the aforesaid occasion 38 passengers were accommodated in the boat. It is not in dispute that the boat capsized while it was at a place near/opposite Pratap Talkies and Sagar Hotel in the lake. Mr. Paniker and the 22 passengers who could not swim and who could not be saved by the saving operation undertaken by the swimmers out of the people collected nearby the lake and the persons from the fire brigade, died.
4. Hence, Complaint Nos. 21 of 1994 and others were filed before the State Commission, Gujarat. By judgment and order dated 23.9.2002 the complaints were partly allowed and the Vadodara Municipal Corporation, opposite party No. 1, and Shri Patheja, Ripple Aqua Sports opposite party No. 2, were directed to pay the amount as determined by it with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of the incident, i.e. from 11.8.1993 till its payment. It is also directed that in each complaint opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 would pay costs quantified at Rs. 1,000.
5. The Insurance Company, opposite party No. 3, before the State Commission, was directed to indemnify a sum of Rs.1 lakh per person who died in the accident and for whom the insurance claim has been preferred by the complainants and in whose case a sum over and above Rs. 1 lakh is awarded subject to the rider that where the amount awarded by the State Commission is less than Rs. 1 lakh, the Insurance Company would deposit that amount with the Commission. It was also clarified that liability of paying the interest would be in addition to the award of Rs. 1 lakh per person. The balance amount was directed to be deposited by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. It was also clarified that Vadodara Municipal Corporation was entitled to recover such balance amount from the opposite party No. 2.
6. Against that judgment and order, the Vadodara Municipal Corporation has preferred Appeal Nos. 464 of 2002; and 61-77 of 2004; the contractor has preferred Appeal Nos. 197, 210-226 of 2003 and, the complainants have preferred Cross-appeals No. 488 of 2002; and Nos. 288-300 of 2004 seeking enhancement of compensation. All these appeals are heard together and are being disposed by this Commission by this common judgment and order.
Submissions of the Corporation:
7. At the time of hearing of these appeals, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Haksar appearing on behalf
