NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
Gangadhar Shamandas
Manglani and Ors. —Complainants
versus
Hotel Lucky India and Anr. —Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.373 of 2014
Decided on 1.7.2022
A. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S. 21(a)(i) – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Hotel / Hospitality – Fire Accident at Hotel – Liability of Hotel – Absence of safety equipment – Res Ipsa Loquitor – Death of deceased – Just compensation awarded - The fire took place due to electrical short circuit as such use of electrical wiring and board etc. of standard quality according to the load consumed has not been proved. The report of Officer In-Charge, shows that the Hotel did not have smoke detector and the staffs of Hotel were not acquainted to operate fire extinguishers. Negligence on the part of the opposite party in this respect is proved applying the maxim “res ipsa loquitur”. Death of deceased in the Hotel of the opposite parties on 04.08.2012 at 4:00 hours, due to burn injury and asphyxia and Hotel management has committed deficiency in service are proved – Thus loss of income comes to Rs. 3645000/-, after deducting personal income of the deceased and applying multiplier of 15. The deceased was in permanent service as such 50% of this income has to be added towards future prospect. Total loss of income comes to Rs.5467500/-. Apart from it, the complainants are entitled to Rs.15000/- as loss of estate, Rs.40000/- as loss of consortium and Rs.15000/- as funeral expenses. Total compensation comes to Rs. 5537000/-. [Para 11 to 13]
B. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S. 21(a)(i) – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Hotel / Hospitality – Fire Accident at Hotel – Liability of Hotel – Absence of safety equipment – Res Ipsa Loquitor – Death of deceased – Deceased sleeping – Contributory Negligence – If can be fastened - The opposite party took the plea, after noticing fire, the guests were alerted quickly for immediate exit. All the guests quickly left their rooms, except four persons, who were in deep sleep, closing the door from inner side, did not respond. As such, the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence. This plea is not liable to be accepted. The incident took place on 04.08.2012 at 4:00 hours. Sleeping of the guests in hotel at this time is usual. The deceased cannot be held as guilty of contributory negligence. [Para 12]
Result: Complaint allowed.
ORDER
Heard Mr. Satyajit Sen, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Suresh Chandra Tripathy, Advocate, for the opposite parties.
2. Gangadhar Shamandas Manglani and others (heirs and dependants of the deceased Mukesh G. Manglani) have filed above complaint for directing the opposite parties (i) to pay Rs.29381046.78 as compensation, for death of Mukesh G. Manglani, (ii) to pay Rs.700000/- as the cost of litigation and (iii) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper in the case.
3. The facts as stated in complaint and emerged from the documents are that late Mukesh Gangadhar Manglani was serving as Sales Director in Riddhi Technology, Pvt Ltd. Vatva, Ahmedabad and drawing salary of Rs.27000/- per month. In connection with his business tour, he booked one A/C room in Hotel Lucky India. (A Unit of S.K. Mineral Handling Pvt. Ltd.) (the opposite parties) for 03.08.2012 to 05.08.2012. He checked in on 03.08.2012 in Hotel Lucky India and stayed in Room No.301. On 04.08.2012 at 4:00 hours, while sleeping, the fire broke out in the hotel, in which, three guests including Mukesh Gangadhar Manglani died due to burn injury and asphyxia due to inhalation of carbon-die-oxide and carbon-mono-oxide. Injured/deceased were taken to Community Health Centre, Barbil at 6:15 hours, where they were declared dead. On the complaint of Dr. Sachindra Kumar Das, FIR No.12/2012 was registered at Police Station Barbil on 04.08.2012 at 7:45 hours under Section 285/337/304-A IPC. In which, after investigation the police submitted Charge Sheet No.95 dated 19.05.2014, against S.K. Behra (opposite party-2). The police made Inquest of the dead body of Mukesh Gangadhar Manglani on 04.08.2012 at 10:30 hours at CHC Government Hospital, Barbil and sent the dead body for post mortem and post mortem was done on 04.08.2010 at 16:10 hours at CHC Barbil, in which, cause of death was noted as “Asphyxia due to inhalation of carbon-die-oxide and carbon-mono- oxide, which might be due to accidental burn”. Kailash Kotwani, the proprietor of Riddhi Technology, Pvt Ltd. Vatva, Ahmedabad was informed about the incident, who informed the complainants. Then complainants-1 to 3, Girish Gangadhar Manglani, Kailash Kotwani, Prakash and Deepak came to Kolkata taking flight from Ahmedabad, from where they went to Barbil through road, reaching there at 11:00 hours on 05.08.2012. Complanants-1 to 3 cremated the dead body at Barbil and came back to Ahmedabad, taking flight from Bhubaneswar. This complaint was filed on 05.08.2014, claiming compensation as mentioned above. The office has reported 2 days delay in filing the complaint. It should one day as incident occurred on 04.08.2012. In the interest of justice we condone the delay in filing the complaint.
4. The opposite parties filed their written reply on 25.05.2016, in which, the material facts, as stated in the complaint, have not been denied. It has been stated that Hotel Lucky India was put into operation in the year 2007, after obtaining licence from Municipal Authorities on 25.07.2007. It was a three floor building, consisting 6 rooms and two exit points at each floor. Electricity supply was from Orissa North Eastern Electricity Supply Company Ltd., vide agreement dated 13.08.2007. Electricity load was enhanced from 256 KVA to 35 KW on 06.03.2009. Ever since, periodical inspection was conducted by Electrical Inspector, besides the staff of Orissa North Eastern Electricity Supply Company Ltd. There was no adverse report, in respect of installation of electricity connections. On each floor of the building one fire extinguisher and smoke detectors/fire sensors were installed, which was checked regularly. On the date of incident, fire extinguishers and smoke detectors were in good working condition. The report of Fire Officer that the Hotel did not have smoke detector or the staff of Hotel was not acquainted to operate fire extinguishers is incorrect. At the time of incident on 04.08.2012, 19 members of the staff were on duty
Synco Industries vs. State Bank of Bikaner
Dr. J.J. Merchant vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi
Amar Jwala Paper Mills vs. State Bank of India
CCI Chambers Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233.(Para 8)
Syed Akbar vs. State of Karnataka
Ravi Kapoor vs. State of Rajasthan
Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi vs. M/s. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. Ltd.
Negligence under the Consumer Protection Act was established, allowing recovery for wrongful death.
(1) Deemed admission - The deemed admission of the opposite party hospital in their written version includes the admission of the plea in the plaint regarding negligence committed by the opposite par....
The liability of the organizers and the State for the fire tragedy and the extent of compensation payable to the victims.
Hotel operators owe a duty of care to ensure the safety of their guests, and negligence can be established through unauthorized access leading to harm.
Fire accident in residential house of complainant due to leakage in gas cylinder—Without proving fact of loss, impugned judgment and order of District Commission concerned for its payment is not prop....
Insurance Company cannot travel beyond the grounds mentioned in repudiation letter.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.