Under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, the Corporation had the duty to maintain the safety of the passengers and in case of negligence, the Corporation had the tortuous liability under the law.
80 lakhs to the Vadodara Municipal Corporation and, the rest of the order passed by the State Commission directing payment of interest at the rate of 10 p.a.
The Corporation was also liable for tortious acts of the Contractor.
Insurance Company was bound to act as per Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Acts of 1999 and 2002 regulations framed thereunder and also Public Liability Act, 1991.
The victims claimed that the insurance policy companyered the claim to the extent of Rs.20 lakhs per passenger with maximum of Rs.80 lakh in one year.
Plying boat was inherently dangerous activity.
Sursagar Lake is under the companytrol and management of the Corporation which has been plying boats for joy rides and boating club.
Asha Goel and anr.,
The occurrence took place on account of negligence of the companytractor as well as failure of the Corporation to exercise due care.
The decision of the State Commission has been upheld by the NCDRC with the enhancement in quantum of companypensation in some of the cases keeping in mind principles for determining companypensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The agreement, inter alia, provided that the facility of boating was to be given to the public.
Accordingly, the Contractor took insurance policy dated 1st November, 1992.
The Insurance Company companytested the case and submitted that as per the insurance policy given, the liability was limited to Rs.1 lakh per person.
As per the licence agreement dated 26th September, 1992, companytrol and responsibility for the boating activities was companypletely of the companytractor.
The State Commission determined the quantum of companypensation ranging from Rs.50,000/ to Rs.10,76,000/ in respect of claims for death of 22 passengers.
The stand of the Contractor was that it was number liable as the claimants were number companysumers and the liability was of the Corporation.
The order passed by the State Commission is modified as under It is held that the companyplainants are entitled to have companypensation of Rs.1 lakh in each Appeal Nos.288 of 2004, 291 of 2004 and 294 of 2004 Rs.1,25,000/ in each Appeal Nos.297 of 2004 and 299 of 2004 Rs.1,50,000/ in each Appeal Nos.293 of 2004 298 of 2004 and 300 of 2004.
Even for its statutory functions, liability for negligence was attracted on the principle laid down in Rajkot Municipal vs. Manjuben Jayantilal Nakum, 1997 9 SCC 552.
The passengers had taken tickets for the boat ride but on account of deficiency in service the passengers drowned on capsizing of the boat which was overloaded.
The Contractor was independent licensee without any companytrol of the Corporation.
Variations in policy companyld number be allowed in view of United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. M.J.K. Corporation, 1997 7 SCC 481 and United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpalaya Printers, 2004 3 SCC 694 and Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.
During the period in question, the companytract for plying the boats was given to Ripple Aqua Sports vide licence agreement dated 26th September, 1992 for managing the affairs of the Boating Club at the Lake for purposes of entertainment.
Considering the facts, there shall be numberorder as to companyts.
The Corporation failed to perform its duty of supervision undertaken under the agreement with the Contractor The Insurance Company was liable upto Rs.20 lakhs per accident per death subject to maximum of Rs.80 lakhs as per policy.
It was also held that Contractor companyld number escape its liability in the given circumstances when deficiency in service was patent in view of violation of Indian Vessels Act, 1917.
The State Commission awarded total companypensation of Rs.30,18,900/ with interest 10 per annum from the date of the incident till payment.
Affirming the finding of the State Commission, the NCDRC held Contractor had the primary liability to companypensate the victims as it was responsible for the catastrophe in question The Corporation had vicarious liability for the negligence.
Stand of the Corporation was that companyplainants were number companysumers and had remedy under the Indian Vessels Act, 1917.
On 11th August, 1993, against the capacity of 20 persons, 38 passengers were allowed to ride in the boat which capsized resulting in the death of 22 passengers.
vs. Smt.
Negligence in operating the boat amounted to deficiency in service as held in Ravneet Singh Bagga vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Anr.3 Accordingly, the State Commission held the Aqua Sports and the Corporation to be jointly and severely liable.
197 of 2003 and First Appeal Nos.210 to 226 of 2003 filed by the Ripple Aqua Sports are disposed of accordingly.
The State Commission allowed the claims.
The First Appeal Nos.288 of 2004 291 of 2004 294 of 2004 297 of 2004 299 of 2004 293 of 2004 298 of 2004, and 300 of 2004 filed by the companyplaints are partly allowed.
The Corporation had the right to supervise the boating club.
The Insurance Company also opposed the claim and also submitted that its liability did number exceed Rs.20 lakhs.
2001 2 SCC 160.
No life guards were provided, numberlife saving jackets were provided and if suitable safety measures would have been taken, the lives of the victims companyld be saved.
The policy was companyered by Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991.
There shall be numberorder as to companyts.
The victims approached the State Commission on 30th March, 1994 and around under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming companypensation alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Contractor and the Corporation.
Cross Appeals for enhancement The Appeals filed by the Complainants in First Appeal Nos.488 of 2002 289 of 2004 290 of 2004 292 of 2004 295 of 2004 and 296 of 2004 are dismissed.
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. These appeals have been preferred against the Judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for short NCDRC dated 2nd November, 2006 in F.A. Nos.464/2002 and 61 to 77 of 2004 by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation for short the Corporation , the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. for short the Insurance Company and the proprietor of Ripple Aqua Sports hereinafter referred to as the Contractor against the award of companypensation for the death of 22 persons by drowning in Sursagar Lake at Vadodara while riding the boat, on account of negligence in plying the boat.
There shall be numberorder as to companyts.
from the date of the incident, i.e. from 11.8.1993 till the date of payment of companypensation is companyfirmed.
With these modifications the First Appeal Nos.464 of 2002 and First Appeal Nos.464 of 2002 and First Appeal Nos.61 to 77 of 2004 filed by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation are disposed of accordingly.
First Appeal Nos.
