National Consumer Disputes Redressal Manisha Chhatre vs The Director, Tamil Nadu Tourism... on 20 March, 2003 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 311 OF 2001 Manisha Chhatre Complainant Vs. Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1158474/ 1
The Director, Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Head office at Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Madras-600 004 Opposite Party BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, PRESIDENT MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER. MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER. Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1158474/ 2
Negligence Tort- guest staying in a room of the upper floor of the hotel door in the room opening outside no balcony, no warning guest opening the door, falling down and dying held deficiency in service. For the complainant : Mr. A.S. Chadha and Mr. A.R. Vij, Advocates For the opposite party : Mr. Maria Arputham and Mr. R. Nedumaran, Advocates O R D E R Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1158474/ 3
DATED THE 20th March, 2003 JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, J.(PRESIDENT) Complainant is the wife of late Shri Vasant Chhatre who died unfortunately while staying in the hotel of the opposite parties where the couple had gone to celebrate their 25th (silver jubilee) wedding. Complainant has claimed Rs.25.00 lakhs as compensation. Both the complainant and her deceased husband were staying at hotel Tamil Nadu of the opposite party. On 13.12.93 at about 8.30 PM Vasant Chhatre, deceased husband of the complainant saw that there was a small door on the western side of their room which was not locked and merely latched. Thinking that the door led to some storage space, Vasant stepped out and immediately fell down approximately at the height of 35. He sustained head and bodily injuries. He was taken to the hospital where doctor declared him dead. A First Information Report was lodged on the same day. Now the complaint is that there was no warning or sign put on the door cautioning the guest not to open the door. At the time of this unfortunate incident Vasant was 53 years of age. He was working as Assistant Director, Aviation Research Centre, Directorate General of Security, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India. He died leaving behind his wife, the complainant, his son, a daughter and 79 years old mother. At the time of death of Vasant was drawing a salary of Rs.7,755/- per month, all inclusive. In support of this last salary certificate of Mr. Vasant had been filed. Opposite party did not deny that both the complainant and her deceased husband were staying in the room of the hotel of the opposite party. It has also not denied the salary drawn by Vasant. However, it gave different version. According to the written version filed by the General Manager of the opposite party Vasant had no business to open the door and it was all his negligent act that he suffered fatal injuries on account of fall from such a great height. According to the opposite party the couple was allotted room No.202 on the second floor at the hotel. There was only two doors in the room one being the entrance door and the other leading to the toilet. There was no small room as alleged by the complainant. At about 8.30 PM complainant and Vasant locked their room and while proceeding for dinner, Vasant cited a small door on the west of their room while walking on the corridor. Presumably out of curiosity Vasant opened the said latched door after removing the wires with which the door was wound. This small door led to a duct maintained for the purpose of air ventilation and for having drain pipes. The door was meant for providing access to the hotel personnel for servicing the air duct and drain pipes. Opposite party contended that Vasant ought to have taken precautions warranted of a prudent man while stepping outside the door. They, therefore, put the entire blame on the deceased husband of the complainant. Earlier when the complaint was filed this Commission dismissed the complaint by passing the following order: We have heard both the parties. We do not find any merit in this petition. Hence the original petition is dismissed. Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1158474/ 4
Matter was taken to the Supreme Court by the complainant which by order dated February 11, 2000 set aside the order of this Commission and remanded the matter for decision in accordance with law. After the pleadings were complete parties were given opportunities to file their evidence by means of affidavits. Complainant filed her affidavit and brought on record documents in support of her case. No affidavit has been filed by the opposite party. Mr. Chadha learned counsel for the complainant also referred to certain judgments pointing out that it was a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. We are unable to appreciate the stand of the opposite party how could a door in a hotel be fixed in such a way that when it is opened outside there is no balcony, there is no grill and there is no warning. In our view any prudent man when he will upon the door, never think that he would just fall down. Thus it appears it is a clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. They are negligent in keeping a door like this and have not given service to the guest as expected of them. There is nothing to rebut the evidence of the complainant as opposite party has not filed any evidence. We, therefore, accept the version as given by the complainant and hold that death of Vasant, husband of the complainant took place because of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In this view of the matter there is no necessity to refer the various judgments cited by Mr. Chadha at the Bar. When the matter was pending before the Supreme Court an application was filed by the complainant seeking to delete the name of the second opposite party-hotel owned and run by first opposite party i.e. Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. When the matter came up before us we required the complainant to file fresh memo of parties and the same was filed by the complainant on 10.12.2001. The question that arise as to the amount to be awarded to the complainant. If we apply the principles as contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, then considering the age and emoluments drawn by deceased husband of the complainant, she would be entitled to Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation. However, since the amount is being awarded lump sum, in our view a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs with interest @ 10% per annum from 13.12.93 will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly complaint is allowed. Complainant shall be paid Rs.5.00 lakhs with 10% per annum from 13.12.93 with counsel fee Rs.10,000/-. J ( D.P. WADHWA) PRESIDENT J (RAJYALAKSHMI RAO) MEMBER (B.K. TAIMNI) MEMBER Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1158474/ 5