Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member
M.M. Kariappa and Anr. —Appellants
versus
Hemalatha Jaswanth and Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal No.1338 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 08/06/2016 in Complaint No. 151/2012 of the State Commission Karnataka)
Decided on 14.6.2022
For the Appellant:Mr. Shanth Kumar Mahale and Mr. Rajesh Mahale, Advocates
For the Respondent:Ms. Asha Shetty, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Multiplier - For the age group of 41-45 years multiplier of 14 is applicable.
(2) Negligence - The appellants took plea that it was prohibited zone, as such, putting a gate/door at the entry point was minimum requirement by way of reasonable care. As such, finding that the appellants were guilty of committing negligence is not illegal.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 —S.19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 —S.51] – Services – Education Services - Appeal against order of State Commission – Death of Deceased - Institute Canteen – Liability of Institute – Negligence attributed upon Institute - Computation of Income - There was neither any boundary nor any grill/railing on the staircase and glass cover put on the gallery did not have any support of iron angle as such the opposite parties were guilty for not taking care any safety measure at this place. On second floor, there were Kitchen, Toilet, Wash, Café, Outdoor Café, Corridor and Common Area as such access of the students and staff to second floor was usual. The appellants took plea that it was prohibited zone, as such, putting a gate/door at the entry point was minimum requirement by way of reasonable care. As such, finding that the appellants were guilty of committing negligence is not illegal - The appellants was charging fee of Rs.320000/- for B.Sc. F.A.D. Course, in the year 2011-12. State Commission has determined future income of the deceased as Rs.25000/- per month as the date of incident is 14.11.2012. A student, who has taken admission in expensive course of study and was first divisioner as such, her future income cannot be said to be excessive - For the age group of 41-45 years multiplier of 14 is applicable. State Commission assessed future of income of the deceased as Rs.25000/- per month. 50% of the income was deducted towards personal expenses. As such loss of income comes to Rs.21/- lacs, applying multiplier of 14. Apart from it medical expenses of Rs.400000/- was claimed, which was verified from the bills of hospital. The respondents were also entitled for compensation for loss of estate and loss of consortium. As such award of Rs.25/- as total compensation cannot be said to be excessive – Appeal dismissed. [Para 10,11].
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
Heard Mr. Shanth Kumar Mahale, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Rajesh Mahale, Advocate, for the appellants and Ms. Asha Shetty, Advocate, for the respondents.
2. M.M. Kariappa and Vogue Institute of Fashion Technology (the opposite parties) have filed above appeal from the order of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore dated 08.06.2016, passed in Consumer Complaint No.151 of 2012, partly allowing the complaint and directing the appellants/ opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.25/- lacs with interest @9% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment and apportioning this compensation amongst the complainants/ respondents.
3. Mrs. Hemalatha Jaswanth, Jaswanth and Swaroop (the respondents) filed CC/151/2012, for directing the appellants (i) to pay compensation of Rs.9500000/- with interest @18% per annum from 25.12.2011 (i.e. the date of death of Swarna Jaswanth) till its realization, (ii) to pay cost of the litigation and (iii) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case.
4. The complainants stated that M/s. Manduda Educational Trust through its Chairman M.M. Kariappa opened an educational institution of fashion design in the name of “Vogue Institute of Fashion Technology” at Football Stadium Complex (for short the Institute). Ms. Swarna Jaswanth (daughter of complainants-1 and 2 and sister of complainant-3) took admission of B.Sc., F.A.D. course in the year 2010-2011 in the said Institute, completed her first year course and passed in first division. For second year course, the Institute transferred the students to the new building at KIADB, Doddaballapura Integrated Apparel Park, Bashettihalli, Kasaba Hobli, district Bangalore Rural, in spite of the objection of the student and her parent as by that time the building was under construction. The management of the Institute assured that the building would be completed soon and they would adopt all precautionary measure for the safety of the students. In November, 2011, the Institute declared vacation of the students to complete the construction. After vacation, the classes started from 05.12.2011. Ms. Swarna Jaswanth was regularly attending the classes. She went to the Institute on 14.12.2011 to attend the classes. During break hours, she along with her friends went to canteen to have some food, situated at second floor of the building. No food was available in the canteen, as such, she was coming down from the canteen. When she put her leg on the first step of staircase, which was constructed for going downwards, the step broke out and Ms. Swarna Jaswanth fell in the side of the step, which was a gallery covered with glass, to protect the rainwater. The glass cover broke out and Ms. Swarna Jaswanth fell on the ground floor along with broken glass and sustained injuries in head and spinal cord and went in coma. When other students made hue and cry, then the administration of the Institute took Ms. Swarna Jaswanth to Doddaballapura Government Hospital, on the college bus, from where she was referred to Columbia Asia Hospital, Hebbal, Bangalore, where she remained admitted till her death on 25.12.2011 and 21:39 hours. On the complaint made by Swaroop, FIR of Case Crime No.344/2011 was registered at Police Station Doddaballapur Rural, on 20.12.2011 at 13:40 hours, initially under Section 338 IPC and after death it was converted under Section 304-A IPC. The incident occurred due to poor construction of staircase, step of which was broken in just putting step on it, while going down. The opposite parties committed gross negligence in not constructing a boundary wall or iron grill by the side of staircase. They further did not give any strength of iron angles to glass panels put on the gallery and glass used for covering the gallery was very thin and of sub-standard. No signboard was put at that place, prohibiting use of staircase or restricting access to that area. The
