NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 

New Delhi

 

Complaint Case No. 201 of 1999

 

 

 

1.         Braham Datt Sharma                                                                     Complainants

S/o Late Shri Mohan Lal Sharma

House No. 3623, Sector 23 – D

Chandigarh

 

2.         Urmila Sharma

W/o Shri Brahma Datt Sharma

House No. 3623, Sector 23 – D

Chandigarh

 

            versus

 

1.         D Krishnamurthy                                                                         Opposite Parties

House No. 22, Vinayak Layout

Sultan Palya, R T Nagar

Bangalore

 

2.         Karnataka State Electricity Board

Bangalore (through its Chairman)

 

3.         Bangalore Municipal Corporation

Bangalore

 

4.         Chief Town and Country Planner

Bangalore City, Bangalore

 

5.         Chief Architect

Bangalore City, Bangalore

 

6.         State of Karnataka (through Secretary,

Urban and Housing Development Department)

Bangalore

 

7.         Gautam College of Pharmacy

Bangalore (through its Chairperson)

 

 

 

BEFORE

 

            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M B SHAH, PRESIDENT

           

HON’BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, MEMBER

 

 

For the Complainants                                                      Mr. Ajay Majithia, Advocate

                                                                                           Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate

 

For Opposite Party No. 7                                                Mr. R Vasudev, Advocate

 

For Opposite Party No. 3                                                Ms Mayuri Kacker, Advocate

                                                                                           for Mr. S N Bhatt, Advocate

 

Dated the 10th March, 2008

 

ORDER

 

ANUPAM DASGUPTA

            The complainants in this case are the parents of one Ms Ritu Sharma who sought to be and was admitted to B Pharmacy course run by Gautam College of Pharmacy, Bangalore in the beginning of 1997.

2.         The main contentions of the complainants before us are as under:

(i)                 Their daughter Ritu was admitted to the above-mentioned course at Gautam College of Pharmacy, Bangalore (OP No. 7 – hereafter ‘the College’), on payment of necessary fees, etc. The course prospectus provided for compulsory hostel accommodation for out-station students and assured separate hostel facilities for boys and girls. In reality, the College had no regular hostel for its out-station students. Ritu was provided accommodation alongwith 6-7 girls in the house of a retired Army officer, which was used by the College as its hostel. This caused Ritu difficulties in pursuing her studies. She, therefore, shifted, with the knowledge and at the suggestion of the College administration, to the house of one D. Krishnamurthy (OP No. 1), which was in the same locality as the College and where 2-3 girl students of the same College were already staying. This accommodation consisted of two rooms on the first floor of the house with common bathroom / toilet facilities and an open terrace.

(ii)               In the night of 3rd August, 1997, Ritu was electrolocuted as she had to shift an iron ladder placed on the terrace in front of the bathroom and thereby touched the overhead high-tension electric power supply line which was just about 8-10 ft above the terrace level.

(iii)             On hearing about Ritu’s demise from one of the students residing in the same place, complainant no. 1 (father of Ritu) reached Bangalore in the night of 4th August, 1997. His complaint at the local police station, registered as an FIR on 5th August, 1997, alleged that Ritu’s death was due to the negligence and carelessness of OP No.1.

(iv)              Each of the seven opposite parties committed various types of negligence and deficiency in providing service, as detailed in the complaint.

(v)                On account of their negligence and deficiency in service, resulting in the untimely death of Ritu (who was only 22 and had a promising career ahead), the complainants should be awarded compensation of over Rs.50 lakh in all from various opposite parties.

3.         OP No. 1, OP No. 2 and OP No. 7 filed their written versions in reply. The complainants also filed a rejoinder affidavit as well as an affidavit by way of evidence against the written version of OP No. 7. OP No. 7, in turn, filed affidavit by way of evidence on 16th October, 2007. It is noteworthy that in their rejoinder affidavit, the complainants have demanded a compensation of Rs. 20 lakh, only from the College and thus effectively amended the complaint prayer.

4.         As against the complainants’ contentions, the College Chairperson made the following main points:

(i)                 The complainants are not ‘consumers’ under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter, the Act).

(ii)               The College had no arrangements with OP No. 1 to use the 1st floor rooms in his house as a hostel for its students.

(iii)             The College had expressly advised complainant no.1 about some undesirable activities of Ritu by its letter dated 7th February, 1997 and stated that Ritu would have to make separate arrangements for her stay if she continued with her undesirable activities, as that might affect other girls staying with them. Complainant no.1 did not write back to the College in response to this letter nor did he seek any assistance from the College in relocating his daughter.

(iv)              Further, by her letter dated 15th July, 1997 to the Administrator of the College, Ritu sought permission to shift from the hostel where she was staying and went ahead on her own volition to stay in the house of OP No.1. Ritu being a major, the College could not have prevented her from staying at any place of her choice.

(v)                Therefore, no liability for negligence in providing service could be fastened on the College for her decision to move out of the College hostel and her unfortunate death due to electrocution while residing at the house of OP No.1.

5.                                          In its written version, OP No. 2 contended, inter alia, that the alleged high-tension electric supply line did not exactly pass over the terrace of the house of OP No. 1; the line was actually 35-40 ft away from the terrace of the house and passed along the road on which the house was built. Therefore, there was no question of Ritu’s death by electrocution being attributed to any act of negligence on the part of OP No. 2.

6.         In his written version, OP No.1 made the following main points:

(i)                 The College had approached him with a request to allow it to use the two 1st floor rooms of his house for ‘extension of its educational activities’. However, the College allowed some of its students to live in these rooms without his prior knowledge or consent.

(ii)               The allegation that the high-tension electric power line was barely 8-10 ft above the terrace of his house was not true. The line was actually at a distance of more than 35 feet from the rooms on the first floor of his house.

(iii)             It was he (OP No.1) who shifted Ritu to a nursing home on 3rd August 1997 after he found her lying on the terrace. Had her body stuck to the iron ladder touching the high-tension line (as alleged by the complainants), nobody could have touched the body for fear of electrocution.

(iv)              After detailed examination of several witnesses, including the deceased Ritu’s roommates in his house and other necessary investigation, the police submitted a final report to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. In this report, Ritu’s death was attributed to electrolocution by accident. He was, therefore, in no way responsible for Ritu’s death nor for any negligence in that context.

7.         We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties present and considered the averments and documents on record.

8.         Learned Counsel for the complainants strenuously emphasised that (i) as per the provisions of the Act, there was a clear relationship of ‘service provider’ and ‘consumer’ between the deceased Ritu (and hence the complainants) and the College, (ii) the College had explicitly required in its prospectus that out-station students must stay in the College hostel and was hence obliged to provide Ritu reasonable hostel accommodation, (iii) in the so-called hostel the College provided accommodation to Ritu in a small room of a private house which also housed several other girls and where the facilities were inadequate, (iv) on account of these inconveniences Ritu had to shift to the house of OP No. 1 which she did as advised by the Administrator of the College and with the full knowledge of the College, (v) OP No.1 was negligent in providing a 1st floor room to Ritu, knowing fully well that a high-tension electric power line ran right over the terrace at a dangerously low height and (vi) all the OPs, particularly OP Nos. 7 and ! were, guilty of negligence and deficiency in providing service, leading to the most unfortunate and untimely death of Ritu by electrolocution. For this, they must be made to pay compensation to the complainants. In his brief submissions, the learned Counsel for the College drew attention to the points already made in the averments. Learned Counsel for OP No. 3 merely stated that OP No. 3 was no way connected with the death of Ritu.

 

Findings

 

9.      The fact that Ritu died of electrocution is indisputable. The final report (FR) of the police in this case states that according to the medical examination, Ritu died of electrolocution. However, the FR first notes, “It is found that this death has occurred due to showing irresponsibility and negligence by not constructing the house with any safeguard items and constructed in such a way carelessly so that anybody can come under the contact with the electricity and danger for human life from the said high tension wire.” Nonetheless, the final conclusion in the FR is that Ritu’s death by electrolocution took place accidentally, because she moved an iron ladder, which somehow touched the high-tension power line running above the house. The basis of this conclusion is the legal advice of the “ADP” citing insufficiency of evidence to prosecute OP no. 1 under section 304A of the Cr. P. C. and approved by the DCP in-charge.

In her letter of 7th February 1997, the College Administrator has cast some aspersions on the conduct of Ritu when the latter was staying with other girl students of the College in the private house used by the College as its ‘authorised hostel’. These aspersions, vehemently denied by the complainants, have been repeated in the affidavit dated 16th October, 2007 of the Chairperson of the College. Complainant no. 1 has vehemently denied the receipt of this letter. Moreover, OP No. 1 has stated in his written version that the College authorities approached him for permission to use the two 1st floor rooms of his house for ‘extension of their educational activities’. The College Chairperson, however, states in her affidavit dated 16th October 2007, “… … at the time of the incident Ms Ritu Sharma was residing at house no. 22, Vinaik Layout, Sultan Palya, R. T. Nagar, Bangalore in the property of Respondent No. 1 which had got no connection with Respondent no. 7 …” It is noteworthy that even if the letter dated 7th February, 1997 was indeed sent by the College Administrator to the father of Ritu, it was only on 15th July, 1997, i.e., after over 5 months that Ritu wrote a letter to the Administrator of the College opting to move out of the ‘hostel’. In other words, even according to the College authorities, Ritu’s conduct during the intervening period was not such as would have called for writing to her father again, far less her expulsion from the so-called hostel of the College on grounds of misconduct. Another aspect is noteworthy too. It is difficult to accept that Ritu, an obvious newcomer to Bangalore, would on her own be able to search out and locate this particular house of OP No. 1 as an alternative to the ‘authorised hostel’ of the College. This, read with the repeated averments of the complainants that Ritu moved to this house at the oral suggestion of the College Administrator (one Ms Anita who has not filed any affidavit on this issue) where some other girl students of the College were already residing, tends to lend some credence to the complainants’ claim in this regard. Further, at no stage does the College Chairperson claim firmly with any evidence on affidavit that the facilities at the ‘authorised hostel’ were adequate and found to be so by other students who shared the accommodation with the deceased Ritu and, therefore, the move of Ritu to the house of OP No. 1 was undoubtedly of her own choice.

In the face of the findings in the police FR that Ritu’s electrocution was on account of her accidentally shifting the iron ladder and its consequent contact with the high tension power line, it is difficult to see how the contentions of OP No. 1 as well as OP No. 3 that the said high tension power line was 35-40 ft way from the house could be true. The fact that Ritu died due to electrocution completely demolishes this contention of both OP No.1 and OP No. 3 for it is inconceivable that Ritu would have, by some record-smashing athletic feat, hoisted up the iron ladder on the terrace of the house of OP No.1 to a distance of 35-40 ft!. It is also extremely difficult to believe that some girl students of the College stayed in the two 1st floor rooms of OP No. 1 without his knowledge altogether as he had permitted the College to use the two rooms only for extension of educational activities – ‘a noble cause’ in his own words - and not as a hostel for an (undisclosed) consideration.

None of the parties has attempted to clarify whether the fees deposited by Ritu included the charges of lodging in the hostel provided by the College and if not, whether she paid separately for this facility. The reference in Ritu’s letter dated 15th July, 1997 that the hostel rent for July to August 1997 be debited to her security deposit would, however, show that the rent for the hostel accommodation was being charged separately by the College authorities. In that event, either the College was paying the house owner OP No. 1 directly for use of the two rooms on the 1st floor of his house or OP No.1 was receiving some rent from each of the girl students occupying the two rooms. The short point of this discussion is that the versions of the significant Opposite Parties here contradict each other on some relevant points relating to the real connection between the College and OP No. 1 and the circumstances which actually led to Ritu moving out of whatever passed as the ‘authorised hostel’ of the College.

From the FR on record, it seems that the police have also not exactly covered themselves with glory in conducting investigations into a very unfortunate death of a young woman of 22 who had come only some months ago from Punjab to Bangalore for studies after paying substantial fees to the College. However, it is not necessary to go into the quality and credibility of the police investigation in the context of this complaint.

On the other hand, and more importantly, the averments and conduct of the complainants do not help them much in establishing their own case. The complainants do not state if any of them accompanied Ritu to Bangalore and saw for themselves the condition of the College hostel where their daughter would have to live for the full term of her B. Pharmacy course. Whether or not the facilities at the hostel of the College were adequate for their daughter’s stay would have been one of the prime concerns of normal, caring parents. Secondly, there is nothing on record to show that they believed that Ritu moved out of the College hostel, deficient in reasonable facilities as they claim it to be in their complaint, to the house of OP No. 1 with their consent / knowledge or otherwise. Once again, there is nothing on record to show if they made any enquiries whether the facilities at the house of OP no. 1 were comparatively better than those in the College hostel so as to prompt Ritu to move there. In ordinary circumstances, any parent sending a 22-year old daughter to a rather far-off place for education would deem it incumbent to make enquiries in this regard, particularly if the College prospectus required that the out-station students must stay in the College hostel. Thirdly, while at Bangalore in the wake of Ritu’s death, complainant no.1 filed a complaint dated 5th august 1997 with the Police Station, Hebbal, Bangalore. There is not even a whisper of any allegation against the College authorities in this complaint. On the other hand, with their complaint the complainants have themselves produced the copy of a letter dated 7th August 1997 that complainant no. 1 wrote thanking the Chairperson of the College and others for their help in performing the last rites of his daughter Ritu. Fourthly, the complaint does not state how the complainants seek to establish the relationship of ‘consumer’ and the College as a ‘service provider’ once Ritu had moved out of the College hostel and taken residence in the house of OP No. 1. This is crucial because in their rejoinder affidavit the complainants completely absolve OP No. 1 of any liability by demanding payment of compensation only from the College. Finally, the complaint was filed exactly two years after the cause of action, viz., Ritu’s death. This and the conduct of complainant no. 1 at Bangalore would prima facie show that the complaint is an after-thought.

On the basis of the averments and records in this case, we thus find it difficult to conclude that either OP No. 7 or OP No. 1 can be held directly responsible for any deficiency in service or negligence leading to the unfortunate death of this young woman of 22 years. The complainants have not been able to satisfactorily establish that Ritu went on to live in one of the rooms on the first floor of the house of OP No. 1 on account of any promise / assurance made by either OP No. 7 or OP No. 1 or that she was unaware of the existence of the high tension line above the rooms before moving there or that there was a relationship of ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’, as contemplated in the Act, between Ritu and either OP No.7 or OP No. 1 in the context of her choice of residence and subsequent death.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the complaint is dismissed, being devoid of merit.

 

………………………………J

[M B Shah]

President

 

 

………………………………

[Anupam Dasgupta]

Member