LAW FOR ALL

Sursagar Lake - 38 persons died due to capsized of boat in lake - claims against corporation - contractor and insurance company - first denied they are not consumer - next denied there is no service deficiency - corporation denied it's liability - Insurance company limited it's liability only for one lakh per head - consumer court allowed the claim - NCDRC confirmed the same - Apex court held that It is not in dispute that the boat was carrying 38 passengers as against the capacity of 22 passengers. Neither any life guards were deployed nor any life saving jackets were provided to the passengers. The finding of negligence concurrently recorded by the State Commission and the NCDRC does not call for any interference. Primary liability of the contractor stands established. The victims were consumers and the contractor was service provider. Deficiency of service stood established. The stand of the Insurance Company based on second policy dated 1st December, 1992 limiting its liability is untenable. Having issued policy dated 1st November, 1992 covering loss to the extent of Rs.20 lakhs per accident with Rs.80 lakhs as maximum in one year, the Insurance Company could not avoid its responsibility, as rightly held concurrently by the State Commission and the NCRDC. Risk was required to be statutorily covered under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991. The Insurance Company was bound by the The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders’ Interest) Regulation, 2002 framed under the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 and the law laid down in M.J.K. Corporation, Pushpalaya Printers and Asha Goel (supra), rightly referred to by the NCDRC in its order. We do not find any ground to exonerate the Corporation. Admittedly, the activity in question was covered by the statutory duty of the Corporation under Sections 62, 63 and 66 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. Mere appointment of a contractor or employee did not absolve the Corporation of its liability to supervise the boating activities particularly when there are express stipulations in the contract entered into with the contractor. The Corporation was not only discharging its statutory duties but also was acting as service provider to the passengers through its agent. The Corporation had a duty of care, when activity of plying boat is inherently dangerous and there is clear forseeability of such occurrence unless precautions are taken like providing life saving jackets. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the contractor, the Corporation and the Insurance Company against the award of compensation by the State Commission as affirmed/modified by the NCDRC.= CIVIL APPEAL NO.3594-3611 of 2010 VADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ….. APPELLANT VERSUS PURSHOTTAM V. MURJANI AND ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS = 2014 - Sept. Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41898