Partap Singh & Anr vs Doon Valley Cambridge School & Anr

This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission, Punjab dated 1.9.2015 in first appeal No.447/2013.

Briefly put facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the son of the complainant was studying in respondent No.1 school. The

complainants had availed of pick and drop facility for their son from the school for which they were paying transportation fee. According to the

complainants, on 17.2.2012 the school authorities instead of sending the children back in the regular bus sent them in another vehicle being driven by

opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 negligently dropped the son of the complainants at G.T. Road instead of dropping him near his house.

The four and a half years’ old son of the complainants in order to reach house had to cross the road and while he was crossing the road, he was

hit by a tractor trolley resulting in fatal injuries. According to the complainants it was obligatory on the part of the opposite parties to drop their son

near home in safe condition but they were negligent. Consequently, a consumer complaint was filed in District Forum, Firozepur.

The opposite parties on being served with the notice of the complaint filed written statement denying deficiency in service on their part. The District

Forum on consideration of pleadings and the evidence allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party No.1 school as under: -

“In view of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and opposite party No.1 is directed to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.5,80,000/-

as compensation for gross negligence and deficiency in service and Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation for loss, mental agony and shock suffered by the

complainants. This order is directed to be complied with within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the

above awarded amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (5,80,000/- + 1,20,000/-) shall start yielding interest at the rate of 9% per annum till actual payment to the

complainants. File be consigned to the record room.â€​

The opposite parties not being satisfied with the order of the District Forum approached the State Commission in appeal. The State Commission on

re-appreciation of evidence while agreeing with the finding of the District Forum so far as deficiency on the part of the opposite parties is concerned,

reduced the amount of compensation awarded from Rs.7 lakhs to Rs.1.5 lakhs on the premise that as the child was hit by a tractor trolley, the

petitioners/complainants could have claimed compensation by approaching Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The State Commission while disposing of

the complaint gave liberty to the complainants to file MACT claim.

It is pertinent to mention that after the passing of the impugned judgment by the State Commission, the petitioners filed MACT complaint and in the

said matter MACT has awarded them compensation to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- alongwith 9% interest. The petitioners not being satisfied with the

order of the State Commission have filed instant revision petition.

Although the respondents were being represented by Shri P.N. Puri, Advocate no one appeared on behalf of respondents on today’s hearing

i.e. 6.3.2018. Consequently, I had to proceed ex-parte against the respondents.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In my considered opinion, the order of the State Commission reducing the

compensation on the ground that the petitioners could have availed of their remedy by approaching the MACT is not sustainable as it has been passed

in utter disregard of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 3 of the Act is reproduced as under: -

“Act not in derogation of any other law. â€"The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law

for the time being in force.â€​

On bare reading of the aforesaid section it is clear that Section 3 provides for an alternative remedy to a consumer aggrieved against the seller of

the goods or the service provider. The complainants by filing the consumer complaint had availed of the alternative remedy. Therefore, the State

Commission ought not have reduced compensation and forced the complainants to go to the MACT seeking the redressal of their grievance.

In view of the reason stated above, the impugned order of the State Commission cannot be sustained. I accordingly allow the revision petition, set

aside the impugned order of the State Commission and remand the matter back to the State Commission to decide the appeal preferred by the

respondents/opposite parties after due notice to the respondent.

Petitioners to appear before the State Commission on 10.4.2018.