SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

R. Desikan, President, S.M.N. Consumer Protection Council on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Chidambaram - Appellant
Versus
A.Y. Prabhakar & another - Respondent
Decided On : 04/25/1991
O.P. No. 11 of 1991
Advocates Appeared :
S.T. Jagadev

Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d) - Consumer- Tenant of a building by virtue of right as tenant paying rent is entitled to use the lift & is hence hirer of the lift service - Being hirer of lift service maintained by the landlord, a tenant is consumer regarding lift service. (Para 7)

       (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Legal representatives of the deceased Consumer are entitled to maintain a claim for compensation under the Act. (Para 8)

       (iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2 & 14 - Deceased L.I.C. agent participating in a training programme - L.I.C. had office in a building belonging to opposite party No.1 in which there was a lift maintained by opposite party No. 1 - Deceased got jammed in the lift & died instantaneously - Lift moved before the door of the lift car and the d or of the doorway in the building were closed a d accident took place due to failure of this most important safety device - There is criminal negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1. (Para 10 & 11)

       (iv) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2 & 14 - Limitation Act, 1963 Articles 55 & 82 - Deceased died in a lift maintained by opposite party No. 1- It is a case of breach of contract on the part of opposite party No.1 and the case falls not under Article 82 but under Section 55 of the Limitation Act, limitation for which, is 3 years.

       (Para 12)

       (v) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2 & 14 - Deceased, a boy of 22 years of age, died in a lift due to negligence of opposite party No.1 in the maintenance of lift - Claim for compensation by the parents of the deceased - Deceased was earning an average of Rs. 2,500/- per month - Father of deceased is 53 years old who could reasonably be expected to live for another 10 years - Total dependency of parents of deceased comes to Rs.l,80,000/- and taking into factors that lump sum was to be paid and other contingencies could have arisen, a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- awarded against opposite party No.1.. (Paras 15 & 16)

       Result- Complaint allowed accordingly.

R. Desikan, President, S. M. N. Consumer Protection Council on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Chidambaram VS A. Y. Prabhakar & another
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top