AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K. Agrawal, President
The challenge in the Revision Petition No. 3204 of 2017 preferred by Opposite Party No. 3, viz., Anurag Sachdeva and Revision Petition Nos. 3276 and 3277 of 2017 filed by the Complainant under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’), is to the Orders dated 14.07.2017 in Appeal No. 1343/2014 and Appeal No. 1488/2014 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission) whereby the State Commission has concurred with the finding of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-1, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as ‘District Forum’) holding deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties but reduced the compensation the compensation of ₹14,00,000/- as awarded by the District Forum to ₹8,00,000/-.
Since all the three Revision Petitions are arising out of one Complaint, they are being disposed of by this common Order.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Complainant’s daughter was student of Class IV B of Opposite Party No. 2 School where Opposite Party No. 1 was the Principal. Opposite Party No. 3 was carrying on repairing work inside the Opposite Party No. 2 School. Complainant’s daughter while going to toilet during recess hour on 11.07.2012, met with an accident as a block of cement slipped from height and fell over her right leg. Some personnel of Opposite Party No. 3 carried the daughter of the Complainant to the Command Hospital (EC), Kolkata, where Doctors diagnosed it a case of multiple fracture and she underwent treatment from 11.07.2012 to 18.08.2012. Thereafter Complainant’s daughter was taken to Madurai Institute of Orthopedics and Traumatology (in short ‘MIOT’) for better treatment in the native place of the Complainant on 22.08.2012 and she remained admitted there till 27.08.2012. She was again admitted there on 18.09.2012 and discharged on 24.09.2012. The Complainant had to incur an expenditure of approximately ₹2,50,000/-. The husband of the Complainant informed the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 regarding treatment and requested for reimbursement of medical expenses of ₹2,50,000/- but in vain. Vexed with the attitude of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties as they have failed to restrict the entry of the students at the site while construction work was going on but due to gross negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties, her daughter had suffered various losses and could not lead an independent life throughout the life. The following reliefs were claimed before the District Forum :
“(a) reimbursement of the medical expenses to the tune of ₹3 lakh
(b) compensation of ₹16,50,000/- for mental agony and harassment and
(c) litigation cost of ₹20,000/-.”
As the Opposite Parties neither appeared nor filed any Written Version despite notice, the District Forum proceeded to hear the Complaint exparte. After examining material on record, the District Forum allowed the Complaint and directed the Opposite Parties to jointly and severally reimburse the medical expenses of ₹3 lakh, compensation of ₹14 lakh for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of ₹5,000/- within 30 days and failing which it would carry interest @10% p.a.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2, Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya and Kendriya Vidyala, had filed First Appeal No. A/1488/2014 and Opposite Party No. 3/Contractor had filed First Appeal No. A/1343/2014 before the State Commission.
Based on the material adduced and pleadings put forwarded, the State Commission affirmed the findings recorded by the District Forum but reduced the compensation of ₹14,00,000/- as awarded by the District Forum to ₹8,00,000/-, by observing as under:
“The Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have tried to convince that no notice was served upon them but they have failed to show any courage to produce the certified copy of the order sheets of the Ld. District Forum and had it been produced certainly it would have been reflected the comment of the Ld. District Forum that despite receipt of notice, respondent nos. 2 & 3 did not bother to appear and contest. It is unfortunate that the respondent nos. 2 & 3 tried to shift the burden of such incident upon the Garrison Engineer. In fact, the Garrison Engineer has only selected the appellant company being lowest bidder for execution of special repairs and retrofitting/renovation of the Kendriya Vidyalaya at Fort William floated through a tender published in a leading newspaper. After tender, the Garrison Engineer had no occasion to keep watch about day to day repairing work of the school and when the work order was given to the appellant, it was incumbent upon the appellant to take preventive measures so that no accident may take place.
The respondent nos. 2 & 3 also cannot avoid their responsibility because when a school admits students for the purpose of imparting education to them, it also undertakes to render a reasonably assistance to them, wherever required by the students. The school authority, particularly, the Principal of the school should act and behave like the parents and as such he should keep a constant watch over the work of contractor so that no harm is caused to any of the children of the school. The Principal of the school has shown utter negligence in keeping watch over the repairing work considering the safety of the children and he could take positive steps by directing the contractor to keep a guard at the place of repairing work and to make an alternative way of the toilet to save the children from peril. Therefore, the carelessness and apathy shown by the school authority leaves no doubt about the negligence in taking care of the students. Therefore, the Principal of the school or the school authority cannot be permitted to wash away its responsibility to provide such minimum safe-guard for its students. So, like appellant, the respondent nos. 2 & 3 are equally deficient in rendering services.
Considering the materials on record and having heard the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties, it appears to me that the Ld. District Forum was quite justified in allowing the petition of complaint. The Order passed by the Ld. District Forum upon the opposite parties to reimburse the medical expenses of ₹3,00,000/- is also appears to be reasonable and justified. However, the compensation awarded by the Ld. District Forum amounting to ₹14 lakhs appears to be on higher side. In this regard, Ld. District Forum did not assign any reason how it has arrived at a compensation of ₹14,00,000/-. It is true that due to the negligence on the part of the OPs, the victim met the grievous injuries, who was then a student of Class-IV. The unfortunate incident will certainly hamper the educational prospect of the victim and further the victim will not be able to lead normal life and she will have to depend upon somebody else throughout the life. Taking into consideration all the factors and the costs to be incurred by the parents of the victim in future, I think a compensation of ₹8,00,000/- in the facts and circumstances would meet the ends of justice..”
Being aggrieved/dissatisfied, while the Opposite Party No. 3 has filed Revision Petition No. 3204 of 2017 for setting aside the Impugned Order, the Complainant has filed Revision Petition No. 3276 of 2017 and Revision Petition No. 3277 of 2017 for enhancement of compensation.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 3/Contractor, submitted that the Orders passed by both the fora below are liable to be set aside as the Fora below failed to appreciate that they are a company hired by the Opposite Party No. 2 Kendriya Vidyala, through tender for renovation of building as such there was no relationship of consumer between the Complainant and the Opposite Party No. 3; the State Commission erred in assuming admission of the liability of accident on their part due to non-filing of Written Statement/Objection by them before the District Forum; Complainant failed to prove that the alleged injury/disability suffered by her daughter was due to fall of cement block on her leg despite that both the Fora below erred in fastening liability to pay the highly excessive compensation on Opposite Party No.3. It was prayed that the Orders passed by the Fora below be set aside.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2, submitted that they are not liable to pay the awarded amount as the student got injury/disability due to negligence on the part of Opposite Party No. 3, viz., the Contractor who was carrying on the renovation work. Therefore, only Opposite Party No. 3 is liable to pay the awarded amount.
Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainant while supporting the Order passed by the District Forum, submitted that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that her daughter due to accident had undergo treatment for indefinite period and as to be dependent on somebody through her life and would unable to lead a normal life. The State Commission erred in reducing the compensation awarded by the District Forum and prayed that the Impugned Orders passed by the State Commission be modified to the extent that the compensation awarded by the District Forum be restored.
We have heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Parties, Ms. Sumeta Roy Choudhury for the Complainant, perused the Orders passed by the Fora below, the Complaint, the Written Statement and also other documents on record.
From the perusal of the material available on record and having given thoughtful consideration to the pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Parties, we are of the considered opinion that the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Parties are not acceptable for the simple reason that there is concurrent finding of the fact that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties as they were found negligent in taking care of the students while repairing work was in progress in the Opposite Party School, due to which the Complainant’s daughter suffered injury.
The State Commission vide its well-reasoned Order dated 14.07.2017 has rightly affirmed the findings recorded by the District Forum that the Opposite Parties were negligent in taking care of the students while renovation work was in progress in the Opposite Party No. 2 School, due to which the Complainant’s daughter suffered injury. However, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the State Commission has rightly reduced the compensation awarded by the District Forum to the tune of ₹8,00,000/-, which in our considered view does not want any interference. While passing the Impugned Orders dated 14.07.2017, the State Commission had considered all the material evidence on record and we do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Order passed by the State Commission.
It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ [Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022] that the Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extremely limited and this Commission cannot set aside the Order passed by the State Commission in Revisional Jurisdiction until and unless there is any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Order passed by the State Commission. For ready reference, relevant paragraph of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ [supra] is reproduced as under:-
“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”
Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Rajiv Shukla vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. and Ors. [MANU/SC/1120/2022 : (2022) 9 SCC 31] while affirming its earlier view taken in the case of “Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company – (2011) 11 SCC 269” that the National Commission has no right to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts of the Fora below in its Revisional Jurisdiction, has held as under:-
“7.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that on appreciation of evidence on record the District Forum as well as the State Commission concurrently found that the car delivered was used car. Such findings of facts recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission were not required to be interfered by the National Commission in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. It is required to be noted that while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission was exercising the revisional jurisdiction vested under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.”
For the reasons stated hereinabove and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in afore-noted Judgments, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the well-reasoned Orders passed by the State Commission and the Impugned Orders dated 14.07.2017 passed by the State Commission in First Appeal Nos. A/1343/2014 and A/1488/2014, are upheld. Consequently, the present Revision Petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no Order as to costs.