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

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member
Rajendra Kumar Gupta – Appellant
versus
Dr. Virendra Swarup Public School and Anr. – Respondents
First Appeal No.852 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 03/06/2016 in Complaint No.29/2006 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)
Decided on 2.2.2021

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Murari Kumar, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
“Educational Institutions do not fall within ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41] – Death by drowning – Claim rejected – Legality of – Complainant appellant is the father of deceased who was studying in respondent school and drowned in the swimming pool of the School – State Commission dismissed the complaint since complainant is not a consumer of opposite party – Educational institutions do not fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act and education which includes co-curricular activities such as “swimming” is not a service under Act – Impugned finding of State Commission upheld. (Paras 7 to 15)

Result: Appeal Dismissed.

ORDER

C. Viswanath, Presiding Member.—The present Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the Appellant-Complainant against the order dated 03.06.2016 of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission) in CC/29/2009.

2. Along with the Appeal, IA7250/2019, has also been filed by the Complainant seeking condonation of delay of 180 days. However, as per computation done by the Registry, delay is of one day. Since the delay is of one day, therefore, in the interest of justice, delay is condoned.

3. The Appellant is the father of Late Master Raunak Gupta, who was studying in the Respondent School, i.e., Dr. Virendra Swarup Public School. In 2007, the School offered various Summer Camp activities including swimming, and invited students to participate by paying Rs.1,000/-. The Appellant paid a sum of Rs.1000/- to the School, so that his son could participate in the said Summer Camp. On 28.05.2007 at about 9.30 A.M., the Appellant received an urgent call from the School requesting him to come immediately as his son was unwell. The Appellant, upon reaching the School, was informed that his son had been taken to O.E.F. Hospital as he had drowned in the swimming pool of the School. The Complainant then rushed to O.E.F. Hospital where he saw the dead body of his son and learnt that his son was brought dead to the Hospital. Thereafter, Appellant filed a Consumer Complaint in the State Commission alleging negligence and deficiency in service on part of the School and claimed Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the death of his son as well as Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental agony suffered by him and Rs.55,000 towards the cost of litigation.

4. The Complaint was contested by the Respondents-Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties took a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the Consumer Complaint. It was stated that the Complainant was not a Consumer as the Educational Institutions are not covered under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. Factum of death of Complainant’s son due to drowning in the swimming pool was admitted by the Opposite Parties. It was stated that the incident of drowning was not attributable to the negligence of the School as all necessary services and equipment was duly provided by them and the Swimming Pool was under strict supervision. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

5. The State Commission after hearing both the Parties and perusing the record of the case, passed the following directions, vide order dated 03.06.2016:-

“In the above-mentioned circumstances, we reach at this conclusion that clearly, the Complainant is not a consumer of the defendants and the complaint in question, being not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, is not maintainable. Therefore, the Complaint is liable to be dismissed. This complaint is hereby dismissed.

ORDER

No order is being passed with regard to costs of this complaint.

Attested copy of this Judgment be provided to both the parties as per rules.”

6. Aggrieved by the State Commission’s order dated 03.06.2016, the Appellant preferred the present Appeal before this Commission with the following prayer: -

“ i. allow the present Appeal and set aside the final judgment and order dated 03.06.2016 passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Uttarpradesh at Lucknow in Consumer Complaint No. 29 of 2006;

ii. allow the cost of the litigation;

iii. Pass such and other further orders as this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

7. Heard the Learned Counsels for both the Parties and carefully perused the record. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant’s son namely, Raunak Gupta, was studying in the Opposite Party-School. In 2007, the School offered various Summer Camp activities including swimming, and invited students to p

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