State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vinay Rajkumar Rajpal, vs Parkhyatt Goa Resort & Spa on 25 January, 2012
BEFORE THE GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PANAJI GOA Complaint No.7/2007 Vinay Rajkumar Rajpal, Major, businessman, Resident of flat no.41-A, Maker Towers, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005. Complainant v/s 1. Parkhyatt Goa Resort & SPA Arrosim, Cansaulim, Salcete Goa. 2. Blue Coast Hotels and Resorts C/o Parkhyatt Goa Resort & Spa, Arrosim, Cansaulim, Salcete Goa. Opposite Parties Adv. Shri F. Dubashi with Adv. B.D. Nazareth for the Complainant Adv. Shri Rajshekar Rao with Adv. D.V.Patkar for the Opposite Parties Coram: Shri Justice N.A. Britto, President. Shri Jagdish Prabhudessai, Member. Dated: 25/01/2012. ORDER
[Per Shri Justice N.A. Britto, President]
1. The complainant seeks compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of fractures of the right mandible and left side of ramus suffered by him due to a fall the complainant had on 09-07-2005 at about 3.30p.m. in the bathroom of opposite parties room no. 321.
2. Some more facts are required to be stated to dispose off this complaint.
3. The complainant, aged about 29 years, alongwith his wife Mrs. Ravina Rajpal were invitees for the wedding of Mr. Siddharth Bhimrajka who had booked several rooms in opposite party No.1 Five Star hotel belonging to opposite party no.2. The complainant alongwith his wife checked in on 07-07-2005 and were allotted room No.321 on the ground floor. On his arrival the complainant was welcomed and one of the hotel staff escorted him to the said room and showed the complainant the basic features of the said room. The complainant found the room to be nice and pleasant. The complainant also saw the bathroom and he and his wife found that the bathroom was peculiar but chose not to raise any concern with opposite parties authorities regarding its peculiar nature or show his willingness to shift to another room.
4. 09-07-2005 was apparently the wedding day. The complainant attended the pool side lunch party in the afternoon during which alcohol was served but according to the complainant the complainant did not consume any alcohol. The complainant returned to the room around 2.30 3.00 p.m. and entered the bathroom to take a shower bath. The bathroom had three steps to go down to the bathing area and there was a handle bar to the right. When the complainant took the second step the complainant slipped with great force, fell down and suffered the aforesaid injuries. The complainant was attended to by doctors and as per their advice the complainant was taken to Apollo Victor hospital where the complainant was administered immediate first aid and treatment. The complainant consulted some doctors from Mumbai and on their advice the complainant was flown to Mumbai by a chartered flight of Air Ambulance Service. The complainant was admitted to Jaslok Hospital and was operated upon on the next day i.e. at about 4p.m. on 10-07-2005 and was discharged on 16-07-2005, though the complainant claims that his mouth was kept closed upto 19-07-2005 and he was unable to do his normal duties for a period of one year.
5. The complainant sent a notice dated 30-08-2006 through his Advocate Shri C.B. Wadhwa asking the opposite parties whether they were ready to compensate the complainant, followed by reminders dated 07/10/2005, 30/10/05, and 09/01/06, 16/05/2006 and 23/06/2005.
These last two letters were sent through his Advocate M/s Thakore Jariwala & Associates. The complainant also received two replies sent by the insurers of the opposite parties through M/s Tuli & Company dated 14/06/2006 and 28/06/2006 contesting the claim of the complainant and denying any negligence and inaction on the part of the opposite parties.
6. The complainant therefore filed the present complaint on 13/09/2007.
7. The case of the complainant in short is that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties due to defective state of the said bathroom and failure to take preventive measures to prevent such accidents. According to the complainant the internal design of the bathroom was faulty and there was failure on the part of the housekeeping personnel to maintain the bathroom periodically.
8. The opposite parties contested the claim of the complainant by their written version filed through one Indranil Ghosh, Director Finance. According to the opposite parties, the complainant and his wife had not requested for the allotment of another room and had stayed in the subject room on 7th, 8th and 9th July 2005 without any complaint and without expressing any concern until the incident took place at about 3.30p.m.. According to the opposite parties, the complainant and his wife must have used the said bathroom including the shower/bath tub on the said three dates prior to the incident and at no point of time the complainant and/or his wife made any complaint regarding the design of the bathroom or the facilities offered therein. According to the opposite parties, the fall of the complainant is a result of an accident and not attributable to any fault either in design of the bathroom or to any negligence on their part or of their employees. Therefore, no responsibility can be attributed to them. According to the opposite parties, the subject room no.
321 was constructed in the year 2002 and was occupied by several guests in the past without any complaint or accidents.
According to them, all the rooms in the hotel have bath rooms with the same design and other rooms with bathrooms with the same design were occupied by their guests attending the wedding and none of the guests complained about the design of the bathrooms or sought re-allocation of the rooms either.
The opposite parties stated that it is only the complainant who suffered the accident but his wife did not and all of this clearly indicates that there was no inherent problem of the design or maintenance of the bathrooms. The opposite parties stated that the complainant suffered the accident following the pool side party where alcohol was served and it is but unfortunate that the accident occurred but it is not per se evidence of negligence or deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties stated that the complainant perhaps failed to take care that is ordinarily to be expected of a normal person. The opposite parties stated that the complainant was provided requisite medical attention by deputing two doctors by name Dr. Dubhash and Dr. Sanjay Khanzode to attend to the complainant upon being informed of the incident but as the injuries appeared to be serious, the complainant was taken to Apollo Victor hospital for diagnosis and treatment.
9. The complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and was cross examined by the opposite parties. Likewise, the opposite parties filed affidavit of Manikandan Marar, Assistant Director of Finance of opposite party no.1. He too was cross examined on behalf of the complainant.
10. We may not refer to in detail to Manikandan Marars evidence on affidavit as he was not in the employment of the opposite parties on the date of the incident, he having joined the hotel only from 14/07/2008 and he having admitted that it is the housekeeping and engineering department which is responsible to ensure proper and safety standards are maintained in the rooms and which is not a part of his job profile. He also admitted that he had not visited the bathroom in question before giving his evidence because the sunken bathroom in question was uniquely designed like all other rooms. He was unable to tell which bathroom he had visited in as much as he was not even in a position to describe the type of tiles used on the steps when the admitted position was that the steps were made of polished Egyptian marble. He also admitted that he did not know as to why he was chosen to give evidence.
11. Written submissions have been filed by the parties and so also we have heard oral arguments.
12. Shri Rajeshekar Rao, Ld. Counsel appeared on behalf of the opposite parties has relied upon three judgments of the English Court of Appeals and one of Texas Court of Appeals. The three judgments of the English Court of Appeals are Tedstone v Bourne Leisure Ltd., 2008 WL 1867558, Susan Manning v Ann Hope, 1999 WL 1400017; and Mr. Cristian Lewis v Six Continents Plc 2005 WL 3353245. All the said three judgments deal with cases arising from Section 2 of the Occupiers Liability Act, 1957, which incorporates the principle of common duty of care, and states in terms of sub section (1) that an occupier of premises owes the same duty, the common duty of care, to all his visitors except in so far as he is free to and does not extend, restrict, modify or exclude his duty to any visitor or visitors by agreement or otherwise, and, of which sub-section (2), states that the common duty of care is a duty to take such case as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there.
13. The three cases stood on their own facts and so did the case of Mryrie H. Joachimi v City of Houston decided by Texas Court of Appeals wherein it was held that an invitees suit against a premises owner is a simple negligence action, the standard of care required of a premises owner/occupier toward his invitees is the ordinary care that a reasonable prudent person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.
The occupiers liability to an invitee depends, not on whether a specific set of facts or a specific breach of duty is established, but on whether the occupier acted reasonably in light of what he knew or should have known about the risks associated with the condition on the premises.
14. Although we must be prepared to receive light from whatever source it comes, we may not make a detailed reference to the above judgments for we have judgments of our own, delivered in this country, where law is not different, to which reference will be made a little later.
15. Reverting to the evidence of the complainant, the complainant produced three photographs of the bathroom in question from which it can be clearly seen that one has to take three steps before one enters the shower or the bath area.
It has a hand rail on the right hand side which possibly does not extend till the second or third step, leading to the said bathroom/bathtub.
According to the complainant, the design of the bathroom specially the steps leading to the sunken bathtub were faulty and deficient and besides they were negligently attended to by the opposite party. According to him, the bathroom was hazardous in nature which at first look may not appear to be so until the same was put into use.
According to him, the accident was caused due to negligence of the housekeeping personnel of the opposite parties who failed to take due care and caution and keep the bathroom clean so as to prevent any untoward incident.
15.1.
In cross examination the complainant stated that he had to be careful while entering the shower on account of its peculiar design. He stated that the handrail was low and provided little support. He stated that he had to lean to hold the handle with his right hand and that when he took a step down and when he was lifting his other leg to take the next step he slipped with great force and fell down and the first point of contact was his face which hit the second step.
16. The photographs produced and the evidence on record proves that the bath room of room no.321 was indeed peculiar, and, though the complainant has not explained the said expression, in our view, it was peculiar because it was a sunken bathroom which could be used for a shower as well as a bathtub and to go there were three slanting steps to be climbed down without proper support. The floor of the bath room or the bath tub was made of unpolished natural stone known as Tumble Rock while the steps leading to the bathroom were made of polished egyptian marble with a slant towards the bathroom to ensure that excess water does not accumulate on the steps, when in fact the arrangement of steps ought to have been at one level if not in reverse direction. It is admitted that there was another incident on 15/09/2007 similar to the present one involving one Mr. Neeraj Goenkar and only thereafter that the anti-skid precautionary measures were taken by the opposite party as regards the said steps. A late realization indeed of duty to care! As regards the hand railing, as already noticed, it was short and was not available for support to be taken while taking the second or third step apart from the fact that it was inconveniently placed at a lower level and even a person of average height had to bend to hold it. In other words, it was no support to get down slanting polished marble steps. In other words the bathroom was defective and negligently maintained. It was waiting for an accident to happen. This was not expected of a Five Star hotel. It would hardly be relevant to find out whether the complainant fell with his face down or on the back or on the bath tub or on the steps but the fact remain that the complainant suffered injuries on his right mandible and left ramus.
17. At the same time we are not inclined to accept the complainants case that any residue of the soap water contributed to the accident. When the complainant was questioned on this aspect the complainant stated that it appeared that the bathroom was cleaned but after the incident he realized that the steps of the bathroom had a soapy residue and which was probably left from the foam of the bath that his wife had taken earlier that morning which was not visible. The complainant stated that he had checked it by touching and felt the same. In our view, this part of the story has got to be considered as an improvement in the case of the complainant for a ordinary normal person, after he had a fall and sustained fractures would not go to feel the steps to find out whether there was any soap residue left, and moreover, this fact is stated by the complainant for the first time, with the change of advocate, in notice dated 16/05/2006. In our view, there is also no convincing evidence that the bathroom in question was similar to the design of other bathrooms, although the complainant admitted that he was made to understand by his friends that all the rooms and bath rooms were of similar design. Did the bathrooms also have slanting steps and improper support? No acceptable evidence has also been led by the opposite parties to say that all the bath rooms were of similar design. In fact opposite parties witness could not throw positively any light on this aspect
18. That the complainant nor his wife did slip and fall down the steps on two previous days is no defence to the faulty steps and faulty railing provided by the opposite parties in the bath room of a Five Star Hotel. It is nobodys case that the cleaning of the steps was done after every guest took a bath. What should have happened in case one spouse goes for a bath soon after the other? In such circumstances, the steps would remain wet and the slant would provide an added facility, if we may use that expression, for the guest to go for a toss and more so in the absence of proper hand rail. There would have been a possibility of a fall even while coming out of the bathroom, on a slanting polished wet marble steps and without a hand rail to the right. The opposite parties have not examined any expert to say that the bathroom measured to five star standards, with the deficiencies we have noted. In other words the opposite parties constructed and maintained their bathroom without having regard to the safety of their guests. It is common knowledge and it does not require any expertise or a rocket scientist to give his opinion that slightest wetness on a polished marble floor is extremely dangerous whilst walking barefoot, so also a slanting polished floor. The opposite parties ought to have foreseen this and should have taken adequate steps and not waited for two causalities to happen. It is not known whether the positioning or the length of hand rail has been rectified
19. Negligence in common parlance means and implies failure to exercise due care, expected of a reasonable prudent person. The Apex Court in M.S. Grewal and another v/s Deep Chand Sood and others (2001) 8 SCC 151, has held that negligence is a breach of duty and negligence in law ranging from inadvertence to shameful disregard of the safety of others. In most instances, it is caused by heedlessness or inadvertence, by which the negligent party is unaware of the results which may follow from his act. Negligence is thus a breach of duty or lack of proper care in doing something, in short, it is want of attention and doing of something which a prudent and a reasonable man would not do. Though sometimes the word inadvertence stands and is used as a synonym to negligence, but in fact negligence represents a state of the mind which, however, is much serious in nature than mere inadvertence. There is thus existing a differentiation between the two expressions whereas inadvertence is a milder form of negligence negligence by itself means and implies a state of mind where there is no regard for duty or the supposed care and attention which one ought to bestow. Referring to Clerk and Lindsell on Torts (18th Edn) the Apex Court noted that the four of several requirements of the tort of negligence as follows:-
(i) The existence in law of a duty of care situation i.e. one in which the law attaches liability to carelessness. There has to be recognition by law that the careless infliction of the kind of damage in suit on the class of person to which the claimant belongs is actionable.
(ii) Breach of the duty of care by the defendant i.e. that it failed to measure up to the standard set by law.
(iii) A casual connection between the defendants careless conduct and the damage.
(iv) That the particular kind of damage to the particular claimant is not so unforeseeable as to be too remote.
20. In Klaus Mittelbachert (deceased by Lrs) v/s The East India Hotels Limited and others, 1997 INDLAW DEL 402, the Delhi High Court was dealing with a case of injuries having been caused to a diver in the swimming pool of Hotel Oberoi Intercontinental and it was observed that the degree of care is not a phrase with static connotation. Its meaning would depend on given fact situation-the person who owes a duty to take care, the person whose care is to be taken and the subject-matter by reference to which degree of care is to be determined. A person who enters or walks into any premises, if the premises be open to accept entry, and there be nothing warning against his entry, has a right to assume that he is walking into a safe premises.
20.1 The person entering into premises may be an intruder or a person invited or a person entering subject to payment or price charged for the entry. In the commercialized world degree of care would also be determined by reference to the price which is being charged.
A few illustrations were given to expound the principle:
35.1 One who purchases a glass of water from a trolley in the street for 10 or 25 paise is entitled to safe drinking water which should not ordinarily, infect him.
But if a person purchases a mineral water bottle for Rs.10/- or 15/- then he can justifiable demand a higher degree of purity. The manufacturer of water bottle cannot be heard to say so long as he has made it equivalent to the trolley mans water he has done his duty and he needs to do nothing more. Such a proposition would be untenable both in law and equity.
35.2. A hospital admitting a patient indoors impliedly warrantees its wards free from infection. To some extent a patient in general ward and a patient in intensive care unit are assured of a minimum and equal degree of care. However, the intensive care unit, moreso when it is a pay ward, cannot be heard to say that the degree of care adopted thereat is the same as is adopted in the general ward. If the patient may be admitted to an intensive care unit of a luxury hospital say for Rs.3000 or Rs.5000 a day he would be justified in demanding a higher and sophisticated degree of care, comfort, convenience and recovery. It would not be heard to say that its duty to take care of the patient was over by guaranteeing the same degree of care and a mere sterlisation from infection as could be expected in the general ward of a hospital.
35.3 An evening walker desirous of sipping a cup of tea on the roadside dhaba for a rupee or fifty paise would just sit on a charpoy. If the charpoy be not an intentional trap, its collapse bringing down the customer to earth may provide a source of amusement merely and the customer may be happily bid goodbye by the dhaba owner; the customer smilingly accepting his luck to have been in the dhaba. To someone desirous of same sipping of a cup of tea welcomed as a guest in a five star hotel prepared to pay Rs.50/-for a cup is entitled to safer chair to seat him and high quality of tea, well served and presented. The leg of the chair giving way and bringing down the customer on floor of the hotel would certainly invite not a mere smile but a liability in tort on the hotel owner, the latter having failed in discharging his duty to take care and see that the customer was not only comfortable but also safe so long as he was inside the hotel premises whether seated or moving.
20.2 After having given the said illustrations the Delhi High Court observed that a person received in a hotel as a guest enjoys an implied assurance from the hotel that the proprietor by himself and through his servants, agents would take proper care of the safety of the customer.
Not only the building structure but the services offered thereat have to be safe and immune from any danger inherent or otherwise. A hotel owner holds himself out as willing and also as capable to accommodate and entertain the guests. The equality and safety of the services offered increases with the quantum of the price paid for being guest at the hotel . Higher the charges, higher the degree to take care. (emphasis supplied) 20.3 The Court then observed that there was no difference between a five star hotel owner and insurer so far as the safety of the guest is concerned. In the hotel culture the stars assigned to a hotel are suggestive of the professional expertise, achievement and quality of the services available at the hotel and professed and projected by it to the public at large holding out invitation to the prospective guests to stay at the hotel an assurance as to quality, safety and hazardlessness of the services offered and available at the hotel. Such a higher degree of care cannot be permitted to got rid of by merely putting a sign board or caution notice that the guest staying at the hotel does so at his own risk or a guest consuming or availing any of the services offered by the hotel does so at his own risk. The validity of an invitation to avail and enjoy a service and legal consequences including duty to take care and its degree flowing therefrom cannot be permitted to be softened by a general notice at your own risk- which is hardly a deterrent One who extends an invitation, tempting the invite to accept the same cannot be heard to say that the invitee did so at his own risk.
20.4 The Delhi High Court then noticed that the variation in the degree of care making it heavier co-relating the same with the charges fixed and realized in consideration of offering a service assumes significance in law for two purposes. Firstly, it has a bearing on the degree of care expected, either express or implied. Secondly, it has a hearing on the amount of compensation that would become payable in the event of failure to discharge the expected degree of care. Higher the degree of care, higher the quantum of compensation, both flowing from rise in charges realized for rendering the services.
To illustrate, on breach of duty to take care, the five star hotel would not be heard offering the same quantum of compensation as would have been offered by charitable organization running a dharamshala where a guest was staying on payment of nominal charges.
21. Considering the facts of the case and the law on the subject, we have no hesitation in our minds to hold that the complainant slipped and fell into the bathroom sustaining the said injuries on account of the faulty design of the steps coupled with inadequate support provided to hold, while getting down the said steps.
Placing a warning sign would not behove a five star hotel. In our view, the opposite parties would therefore be liable to compensate the complainant for the injuries, caused to him.
22. Compensation in terms of Section 14(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would include both pecuniary and non pecuniary loss caused to the complainant. In other words, the complainant would be entitled to special and general damages. The complainant has not split up the compensation claimed under different heads, either in the complaint or in the affidavit or the written arguments, though the complainant has stated that he has claimed the said compensation under four different heads namely, (a) medical expenses, (b) diagnostic cost, hospitalization, charges of medicine, transportation, special diet, qualified attendant (c) loss of business (d) disability, mental torture, agony trauma to the complainant and his family members. When asked in cross-examination to give the break up of the compensation, the complainant was unable to give the same.
23. Reverting to M.S. Grewal (supra) the Apex Court noted that all relevant material should and ought to always be placed before the Court so as to enable the Court to come to a conclusion in the matter of affectation of pecuniary benefit by reason of the unfortunate death. (that was a death case of school children) Though mathematical calculation is not required but a rough and ready estimate can be had from the record claiming damages since award of damages cannot be had without any material evidence whereas one party is to be compensated the other party is to compensate and as such there must always be some materials available therefor. It is not fanciful item of compensation but it is legitimate expectation of loss of pecuniary benefits. As regards quantum compensation the Supreme Court observed as under:-
As regards the quantum, no decision as such can be taken to be of binding precedent as such, since each case has to be dealt with on its own peculiar facts and thus compensation is also to be assessed on the basis thereof, though however, the same can act as a guide. Placement in the society, financial status differs from person to person and as such assessment would also differ. The whole issue is to be judged on the basis of the fact situation of the matter concerned though however, not on mathematical nicety.
24. Again, reverting to Klaus Mittelbachert (deceased by Lrs), the Delhi High Court observed that while assessing the quantum of damages the court shall have to keep in view not only what has already happened but also what is sure to happen with foreseeable certainty. The court shall have to recollect the past, be alive to the present and also peep into the future.
24.1 Damages are divided into general and special damages. Special damages mean some specific item of loss, which the plaintiff alleges to be the result of the defendants negligence in the case although it is not presumed by law to have flowed from it as a matter of course. General damages are those which the law presumes to flow from the negligence alleged by the plaintiff. Although these damages must be averred to have been suffered and, subsequently, need to be proved it is not necessary to plead them in any detail in the statements of claim.
25. Compensation can never be assessed with mathematical precision. It always involves some guess work but compensation to be assessed must always be just and fair and though the fora has discretion to assess the same, it cannot be fanciful and cannot be such as to make a fortune out of misfortune.
26. The complainant has stated that he spent Rs.6,29,562/- . Complainant has been reimbursed Rs. 3,10,177/- by the Insurance Company. We assume that the said sum was paid to the complainant towards hospital stay, i.e. doctors fees, medicine, special diet, qualified attendant etc. during the time the complainant was in the hospital.
26.1 It is the contention of the opposite parties, by placing reliance on Ashwani Gupta v/s Government of India (2006) ACJ 1901 (not produced for our perusal) that the complainant would not be entitled to the said sum. On the other hand, it is also the contention of the complainant, that the complainant would be entitled to the said sum as it was earned for by the complainant by paying premium towards the policy taken and in this regard the complainant has placed reliance on United India Assurance Co. Ltd., & ors v/s Patricia Jean Mahajan & Ors 2002(6) (Supra) Court Cases 281.
26.2 In our view, the Complainants contention need to be accepted. The medical expenses paid for by the Insurance Company is the amount earned by the complainant by paying premium of which the tort feasor cannot be allowed to take the benefit. There are certain observations in this regard made by the Apex Court in United India Assurance Co. Ltd., & ors v/s Patricia Jean Mahajan & Ors 2002(6) (Supra) Court Cases 281. which are required to be taken note of. It is observed that the insurer chooses to have the insurance policy and he keeps on paying the premium for the same during all the time till maturity or his death.. such a pecuniary benefit by reason of death would not be such as may be deductible from the amount of compensation.
The amount received on account of insurance policy of the deceased cannot be deducted from the amount of compensation though no doubt the receipt of the insurance amount is accelerated due to premature death of the insured Such gains may be - on account of savings or other investments etc. made by the deceased, would not go to the benefit of the wrong doer and the claimant should not be left worse of, if he had never taken an insurance policy or had not made investments for future returns. Ultimately, the court did not allow any deduction on account of receipts of insurance policy and social security benefits received by the claimants. We prefer to follow this later decision of the Apex Court.
26.3 The complainant would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- paid by the complainant for the air ambulance, receipt of which was produced by the complainant.
However the complainant has not substantiated the balance amount of Rs.17,785 claimed to have been spent by him.
Nevertheless considering that medical expenses do not cease immediately after one leaves the hospital, and so also special diet, we are inclined to award the said sum to the complainant.
26.4 The complainant stated that the physical disability affected his business for one year. Besides, the self serving statement, the complainant has not produced any evidence in that regard. The complainant stated that he was in the family business of managing relationship and money. He also stated that he has filed income-tax returns separately and though he stated he could produce the income-tax returns he did not produce the same. Adverse inference needs to be drawn against the complainant for non- production of income-tax returns. Nevertheless, we are inclined to award to the complainant towards loss of income Rs.3750/- on notional basis for three months only following schedule II of M.V. Act 1939.
26.5 The complainant stated that he was operated upon on 10.07.2005 at about 4 p.m. and the surgery lasted for about 5 hours and entailed the insertion of implants such as titanium plates , 6 screws etc. as a result of which both his jaws were sealed and his mouth was kept closed completely from 10/07/2005 for ten days as the wires in both the jaws had to be retained for another month and half and were finally removed and as a result he suffered immensely and had to remain absent from attending to his business activities for over three months. The entire surgical procedures undergone by the complainant must have been indeed very painful. A broken frame cannot be replaced. Compensation in the only thing one can look for. As regards compensation for pain, trauma and suffering suffered by the complainant during the time the complainant was in hospital as well as thereafter, it is submitted on behalf of the opposite parties that compensation ought not to be more than Rs.10,000/- which is generally awarded by the Courts in such cases.
We are not inclined to accept the said submission. In our view, a Five Star guest is entitled to five star facilities and when it comes to compensation it cannot be peanuts. It should also be of five star flavor. It should match the status of the guest as well as that of the hotel. Considering the facts of the case and the ratio of Klaus Mittelbachert (supra). we are inclined to award to the complainant a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- under this head and that would bring the total compensation payable to Rs.9,33,312/- which are rounded off to Rs.9,33,400/-.
26.6 There is no evidence that the injuries caused, have left any permanent disability to the complainant.
27. For the above reasons, we allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay to the complainant Rs.9,33,400/- by way of compensation with pending and future interest at the rate of 9% from the date of complaint, until payment, plus costs of Rs.10,000/-.
MEMBER PRESIDENT