LOUIS CAITANO RODRIGUES Vs. BRIHANMUMBAI KREEDA ANI LALITKALA PRATISTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant retired from active life as taxi driver. O.P. No. 1 is a Registered Trust Known as "Brihanmumbai Krida Ani Lalitkala Pratisthan, Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika Shahji Raje Bhosale Kreeda Sankul. O.P. No. 2 is the Managing Trustee of the Trust. O.P. No. 3 is the Member of the Committee In -charge of the Trust and O.P. No. 4 is the Swimming Instructor and Lifeguard appointed by the Trust.

(2.) THE O.P. No. 1 has its Swimming Pool at Andheri (West), Mumbai. O.Ps. enrolled the members for the purpose of swimming and also give admission to the public to the Swimming Pool as per Rules and Regulations of the Swimming Pool.

(3.) FRANCIS , the son of the complainant was given admission for monthly course for beginners/swimmers. Francis paid Rs. 400 to the O.P. towards entrance fee, instructions fee and monthly fee for the monthly course commencing from 4th June, 1997. The said course actually started on 5th June, 1997. Francis was a beginner. On 20.6.1997 at about 8.00 p.m. he reported his presence to O.P. No. 4, who was on duty at the Swimming Pool. O.P. No. 4 instructed Francis to swim in the Pool. However, O.P. No. 4 without informing Francis left the place. Francis jumped into the water under impression that Lifeguard was nearby. Francis was swimming in shallow water. Francis all of a sudden started drowning and shouted for help. O.P. No. 4 was too late to arrive at the Pool side. Meanwhile, Francis made struggle for his life in the water. Francis was taken out of water. The jaw of Francis was found locked. Yellowish forth was coming out from his mouth. Francis was taken to Cooper Hospital in a private car. In the Hospital Francis was declared dead. It is the case of the complainant that because of negligence on the part of the Swimming Instructor and Lifeguard, Francis, a young boy of 24 years lost his life. Francis was only son of the complainant. The O.Ps. refused to admit their lapse and turned down the claim for compensation. Therefore, the complainant filed consumer complaint for grant of compenstion of Rs. 10 lakhs.