State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
S.Venugopal vs Aquatic Club on 24 August, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Complaint Case No. CC/13/75 ( Date of Filing : 19 Sep 2013 ) 1. S.VENUGOPAL NANDANAM,SRA-1C,SHANTHI NAGAR,SREEKARYAM.P.O TRIVANDRUM KERALA ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. AQUATIC CLUB SECRETARY,ARISTO ROAD,MISSION QUARTERS THRISSUR KERALA ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN PRESIDENT SMT.BEENAKUMARI.A MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 24 Aug 2023 Final Order / Judgement KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM C.C. No.75/2013 JUDGEMENT DATED: 24.08.2023 PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. BEENA KUMARY A. : MEMBER COMPLAINANT: S. Venugopal, Nandanam, SRA-1 C, Santhinagar, Sreekariyam P.O., Thiruvananthapuram - 695 017 (by Adv. Suresh Kumar C.R.) Vs. OPPOSITE PARTIES: 1. Aquatic Club represented by its Secretary, Aristo Road, Mission Quarters, Thrissur - 680 005 2. President, Aquatic Club, Aristo Road, Mission Quarters, Thrissur - 680 005 3. Secretary, Aquatic Club, Aristo Road, Mission Quarters, Thrissur - 680 005 (by Adv. P. Raj Mohan) JUDGEMENT
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT This complaint presents an unfortunate incident in which the complainant lost his elder son. The complainant is a person working in Emirates Airlines at Dubai. He is also residing in Dubai. He was blessed with two male children. They were also residing at Dubai and studying there. His elder son, Abhijith who was aged twenty two years used to spend his holidays with his grandmother at Trivandrum. While so, when he was at Trivandrum on one occasion, he went to Trissur on 10.01.2013 to spend a few days with his friends. The father of his friend, Ashiq Raj, is a member of the 1st opposite party club. Faheem, another friend of his also had his paternal uncle as a member of the same club. On the fateful day, late Abhijith and his friends visited the club on 10.03.2013 on the strength of the entry passes issued to them by the Authorities. At about 6 o'clock, Abhijith was found drowned in the swimming pool at a point where the water was twelve feet deep. He was immediately taken to the Jubilee Mission Medical College Hospital, Thrissur, where his death was declared at about 2.45hours on 11.03.2013.
2. According to the complainant, the death of his son was due to drowning. The opposite parties being service providers, were offering various amenities, one such amenity being the swimming pool. Their services are provided against a membership fee which runs into lakhs of rupees. One of the friends of the deceased had obtained passes for entry to the club of the opposite parties for the deceased and his friends. Therefore, the deceased also become a consumer of the services provided by the opposite parties. The complainant further alleges that the opposite parties had failed to maintain proper life protection measures at the swimming pool. There were no life-guards when drowning occurred. Therefore, the rescue was delayed. No doctor was available on the spot. It is alleged that late Abhijith was alive when he was taken to the hospital. A timely rescue would have saved the precious life of the youngster. The loss of life was due to the negligence and shortcoming in maintaining necessary safety measures like providing life guards, life jackets etc. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The services were provided after receiving payments and therefore, there was unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. On the above grounds complainant claims a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty Lakhs) for the loss of their son and all the pain, suffering they had to undergo, together with an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) as costs.
3. This complaint is contested by the opposite parties who have filed a common written version. According to their version, the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act for short). The opposite parties are the President and Secretary of the private club by name "Aquatics Club", a non-profit making club registered on 21.08.1985 under the Travancore-Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955 with its aims and objectives to promote social life by providing a common ground for men, women and children of all communities to meet and foster a spirit of goodwill and fellowship to do social, charitable and humanitarian work. It is exclusively a private club meant for members only. The opposite parties do not issue entry passes to any strangers as the facilities are meant only for its members and their accompanying guests will not come within the definition of consumer. Each member in the club is responsible for the acts of the guests and as such the club is not giving any service to the guests. Thus, the complaint is not maintainable. It is not forthcoming from the complaint as to what is the unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice adopted by the opposite parties. The complainant's son had not hired any services for a consideration and he is not a consumer under Section 2(d) of the Act.
4. The version denies the claim. The averments in the complaint regarding the personal details of the complainant and his son are not admitted. It is submitted that one Suresh Venugopal was having membership in the club. According to the version, the opposite parties are not aware whether one Faheem's paternal uncle was also a member of the club. The incident in which late Abhijith was drowned is admitted. According to the opposite parties, they are not the service providers to the complainant's son as per the registered by-laws of the club. A member may bring a person as a guest and he shall forthwith enter the name and other particulars of the guests in the register. It is further stipulated that the host shall also be present with the guest in the premises of the club. The host shall be bound to pay to the club all the charges and fees incurred by the guests including the cost of the damages if any, caused by the guests to any property of the club. From this it is clear that the complainant's son who entered the premises of the opposite parties' club was only a guest and as such all the expenses regarding the guest fees charges etc. had to be paid by the host and in the event of any damage caused, the same will also have to be paid by the member/host. In view of the above, the complainant's son will not come within the definition of consumer under the Act. The opposite parties dispute the contention of the complainant that one of the friends of the deceased had obtained passes for the entry to the club of the opposite party and that the same would entitle them to be described as consumers entitled to claim the benefit of the Act. According to them, the club was established twenty nine years ago and is a very prestigious club. All required protection measures are maintained at the swimming pool. There are trained life guards appointed at the swimming pool and life jackets and modern apparatus have been installed at the swimming pool. Apart from the above, the club of the opposite parties have visibly notified in very clear terms vide a notice board fixed adjacent to the swimming pool, a set of specific directions which the users of the pool have to obey and observe while using the opposite party club. The fact that the said notice was displayed at a very conspicuous place near to the swimming pool also proves that the opposite parties had set very high standards for the use of the pool. In the said notice board, it has been clearly mentioned that those persons who enter and use the swimming pool would do so on their own risk and that in the event of any accidents, the opposite parties would not be liable. Further, it is very clearly stipulated in the notice board that those who do not know swimming are barred from entering the dangerous portions (having height of 12 ft) of the swimming pool. The death of the complainant's son was due to the fact that he did not know swimming but he might have moved to the dangerous levels. The swimming life guard who was present Sri. Suresh, had given proper instructions and guidelines as the complainant's son was swimming with his friends. They also told that they will take care of the complainant's son. Meanwhile, the life guard who was present on duty had informed Ashiq Raj that the time stipulated was 6.30p.m. and requested the guests to vacate the pool. The said Ashiq Raj and friends replied that they would take care and would vacate the pool shortly. But the complainant's son moved to the dangerous portion of the pool, probably in a frenzy and negligent manner and as a result, met with the accident. The complainant's friends should not have used the facilities in the pool especially since he was not having the skill of swimming. He had wilfully disobeyed the instructions that had to be strictly followed and continued to use the pool on his own after the period stipulated for such use had expired. He had been given necessary warnings and directions but he did not obey them. The life guard who was on duty tried to save his life. Dr. Rakeesh who was using the swimming pool immediately gave first aid and took him to the hospital. There was absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
5. The opposite parties further state that all necessary precautions had been taken for the smooth and proper conduct of the said swimming pool. It was pertinent to note that not a single incident had happened in the last twenty five years and that itself stands testimony to the fact that there was no deficiency in service as alleged against the opposite parties. The complainant has also not been in a position to prove any deficiency in the service accorded. The unfortunate incident of the death of the complainant's son was because of the negligence committed by him while using the swimming pool. The same cannot by any stretch of imagination be attributed to any deficiency in the service of the opposite parties.
6. According to the opposite parties, the allegation of the complainant that the rescue was delayed is utter falsehood. Complainant's son negligently moved into the dangerous portion of the swimming pool unnoticed by his friends using the swimming pool. The acts of the complainant's son who did not have the basic knowledge of swimming and compounding that with his wilful disobedience of the strict rules and regulations pertaining to the use of the pool caused his unfortunate death. All efforts were taken in a quick and orderly manner upon coming to know of the fact that the complainant's son was in a critical state and this is not a case where the opposite parties have failed to maintain proper life protection measures. There is no circumstance available to attribute any negligence or shortcoming in maintaining the swimming pool by the opposite parties. The allegation that the opposite parties have received payment from the complainant's son is denied. According to them no payment was received. The further averment that as a result of the acceptance of the said payment it has become a commercial transaction amounting to unfair trade practice and the consequent demand for compensation are absolutely false, baseless and denied.
7. The case of the opposite parties is that the death of the complainant's son was caused due to the negligent and irresponsible acts of the said person and therefore no compensation was liable to be paid by the opposite parties. All protective measures were taken at the swimming pool and well-trained life guards were present. Precautionary notices displayed at the pool are available even now as stated in the reply notice dated 12.08.2013. But, the complainant's son, disregarding the warning signs chose to move to the dangerous portions of the swimming pool resulting in his death. The opposite parties cannot even be remotely held responsible for the said consequence. They reiterate that the deceased was not a person coming within the definition of 'consumer' under Section 2(d) of the Act. No unfair trade practice was committed by the opposite parties. All precautionary measures have been taken to ensure the use of the swimming pool in a safe manner and the pool had been taken care of and maintained well by the opposite parties. On the above contentions, the opposite parties sought for dismissal of the complaint.
8. Both sides adduced evidence in support of their pleadings. The documentary evidence in this case consists of Exhibits A1 to A9 documents produced and marked on the side of the complainant and Exhibits B1 to B21 documents marked on the side of the opposite parties. The oral evidence in the case consists of the testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Secretary of Thrissur Municipality as PW2. The Manager of the club has been examined as DW1 and one Suresh who claims to have been the life guard at the time of the incident has been examined as DW2. On the above pleadings, the following points arise for consideration:
Whether the death of complainant's son was attributable to any fault or negligence on the part of the opposite parties?
Whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation as claimed? If so, what should be the appropriate amount for such compensation?
Point No.1
9. The case of the complainant in this case is that his son aged twenty two years who was a student of B.Tech Mechanical Engineering course had died of drowning in the swimming pool at the club of the opposite parties. The incident in this case is admitted and stands proved by the postmortem certificate. A criminal case had been registered by the Police and after investigation, it has been found that death was caused due to drowning. For the above reason, as per the final report, Exhibit B 21 the case has been closed, since no crime was involved. The case of the complainant is that his son was a consumer and the opposite parties are service providers. Alleging that there was negligence and unfair trade practice on their part compensation has been claimed. According to the opposite parties, there was no fault on their part since they had taken all precautions to ensure that the swimming pool was used safely by all users. A club is meant exclusively for its members and their guests. The complainant's son was not a member of the club. It is therefore contended that he would not come within the definition of consumer of the Act. They further contended that rules had been displayed in the premises directing all persons to use the swimming pool only following the instructions. An Advocate Commissioner had been appointed to make a local inspection of the club of the opposite parties. Accordingly, the Advocate Commissioner had inspected the premises and submitted a report. The report has been marked as Exhibit C1. According to Exhibit C1, the board displayed near the swimming pool was not placed in such a way as to be noticed by the visitors to the club. The opposite parties have produced Exhibit B6, a copy of the board that is displayed near the swimming pool. A perusal of the Exhibit B6 shows that the same is in Malayalam the vernacular language. The complainant has a case that the deceased, having been brought up and educated in Dubai, was not familiar with Malayalam and not in a position to read anything in the said language. It has been specifically stated in Exhibit B6 that prior permission of the Authorities was necessary to use the pool and that children who enter the pool have to be accompanied by elders who are required to take care of their safety. Exhibit B6 further notifies that persons who use the pool would have to do so on their own responsibility and that the Authorities would not be liable for any accidents. It further notifies that persons who do not know swimming shall not enter the pool and that persons who enter the pool would have to wear swimming trunks and no valuables should be brought to the pool. Persons are also required to shower before entering the pool. Use of the pool under the influence of intoxicating drugs or drinks also is prohibited. It is clear from the restrictions stipulated in the above notice that club of the opposite parties is a family club where apart from its male members, guests both females and children are also expected to use its facilities.
10. It is not in dispute that entry into the club for non-members was permitted only as guests of its members. Guest charges have also been extracted from the members for permitting their guests to use the facilities. It is therefore clear that, the facilities of the club were offered to its members as well as guests only on payment of charges for such use. The club is admitted by the opposite parties to have been in existence for more than twenty years. It is not clear as to how many people were members of the club but, from the available records, it is clear that the club is a place used by its members and its family members including children. Since a swimming pool is dangerous for non-swimmers and children, the opposite parties who are the Authorities of the club owe a duty of care to them. Such a duty of care is owed to guests of members also. In view of the fact that the guests and members are entitled to use the pool only if permitted by the Authorities, immediately on grant of such permission duty of care will also arise with respect to every person using the facilities of the club. Therefore, the contention that guests are persons who have no connection with the management of the club cannot be accepted.
11. In the above view of the matter, as soon as the deceased Abhijith V., was permitted to enter the club to use its facilities, the management had a duty of care with respect to the said person also. The opposite parties cannot shirk their responsibility for the reason that he was only a guest of one of its members. According to the counsel for the complainant, this is a case in which the twenty two year old son of the complainant had lost his life in the swimming pool of the opposite parties club. Had they put effective safety measures in place, the valuable life could have been saved. No life jackets were available at the pool, nor was the services of a life guard provided at the pool. According to the learned counsel, DW2 who was examined claiming to have been the life guard at the time of incident was not a person trained in rescuing persons from water. It is pointed out that, no one has any clear idea as to what happened to Abhijith when he was using the pool, leading to his death. It could have been a case of the person losing consciousness or some other similar unexpected event. The fact that nobody noticed him struggling in the water proves that no life guard was actively watching the persons who were using the pool. Though he was fished out of water and taken to a hospital, he had to be given ventilator support and he finally expired early morning the next day. The postmortem report conclusively finds that his death was due to drowning. It is mentioned in Exhibit A4 postmortem report that the Trachea and Bronchi of the deceased contained mud and plenty of blood-stained fluid.
12. The counsel for the complainant relies on the above finding to contend that the pool was not maintained properly and that there was mud in the pool which ought not have been present. Of course, the said possibility cannot be ruled out but it is not possible to draw any definite conclusion that the pool was not in a well-maintained condition, especially since there is no other evidence on the said aspect. From Exhibit C1 report, what appears is that the pool looked clean and well-maintained when the Advocate Commissioner inspected the club. Be that as it may, the fact that the deceased had been permitted to use the pool on the fateful day and that he had died of drowning cannot be disputed.
13. The counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court, in Managing Director, Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Vs. Deepti Singh & Others (2019) 16 SCC 573 to contend that in a similar situation the court has granted compensation and has also laid down the parametres for determining liability. In the said case, the respondent, her husband and two children had booked accommodation at Hotel Samudra, Kovalam for a family holiday. The father of the minor children entered the swimming pool of the hotel with his brother. Other guests of the hotel were also present at the pool at that time. All of a sudden, Satyendra Pratap Singh became unconscious and sank into the pool. It was alleged by the complainant that on witnessing the incident a foreigner who was in the vicinity of the pool lifted him out of the water. However, according to the KTDC the life guard on duty also jumped into the pool. The victim was pulled out of the water and taken to the hospital. He died at 9.30p.m. on the same day. Subsequently a complaint was filed before the NCDRC claiming compensation. The NCDRC held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the management of the hotel primarily for the reason that the life guard on duty had also been assigned the duty of a bartender. According to the safety guidelines for water sports issued by the National Institute of Tourism, Government of India extracted in the said judgement, it has been stipulated that the duties of a life guard should not exceed four hours at a time and that the area under his observation should not exceed 50 metres. It has further been stipulated that life guard on active duty should not be distracted while on duty. No other jobs should be assigned to him while on duty. In the said case, the life guard was assigned an additional duty of attending a bar which was held to be insufficient compliance with the guidelines. Therefore, it has been held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the KTDC.
14. In the present case, though evidence, both oral and documentary have been adduced and though it is admitted by all that death was caused due to drowning in the swimming pool of the club, there is absolutely no evidence regarding the circumstances that caused the deceased to sink into the water. It could have been due to his losing consciousness or some other physiological infirmities. Though DW2 claims to have been the life guard at that time, he has not spoken to the exact reason that prompted him to jump into the water, lift the deceased out. According to the complainant, the deceased was a person who knew swimming. Therefore, something must have happened that immobilised him. It is clear that the said changes were not noticed by the life guard on duty, if there was such a person available. Admittedly, the swimming pool was open from 6.30a.m. to 6.30p.m. It is also admitted that there was no one else other than DW2 working as life guard. According to DW2, it was his first posting after his training. Therefore, it is clear that he was not an experienced person. According to the life guarding instructions issued by the National Institute of Water Sports extracted in the Judgement referred to above, the duty of a life guard should not exceed 4hrs at a time. The above instructions have not been observed by the opposite parties. Even according to them DW2 was on duty from 6.30a.m. to 6.30p.m. The safety guidelines for water sports issued by National Institute of Water Sports, Ministry of Tourism, Government of India as extracted in the decision of Supreme Court referred to above, is extracted hereunder for convenience of reference.
Pool Lifeguard:
Scope: The Regulations contained below are applicable for lifeguarding at swimming pool, Water Park and Lake front. The stipulations are being framed to ensure that the people/participants enjoy swimming/water borne activities and are free from fear of safety and security;
Life Guarding Instructions:
Duties should not exceed 4 hours at a time.
Area under observation should not exceed 50 metres. More than one observation post must be provided for longer/bigger swimming pools or water parks.
Lifeguard on active duty should not be distracted while on duty. No other job shall be assigned to while they are on pool duty.
Lifeguard should be familiar with standard communication signals.
[Emphasis supplied]
15. According to DW2, he was working at the club of the opposite parties as a swimming coach. Therefore, he was not posted as life guard. His duty time was from 6a.m to 9p.m. His statement is that, while he was standing near the pool, he heard one Ashiq shout that one person was missing. Immediately he came and jumped into the pool and lifted up the deceased. It is clear from his narration that, he had come to know about the incident only when Ashiq shouted that one person was missing. The fact that there was no designated life guard at the swimming pool, that he was not constantly observing the persons using the pool, that the duty time of DW2, who was a swimming coach was from 6a.m. to 9p.m. are all factors that indicate that there was negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Had there been a properly trained life guard on duty, constantly watching the persons using the pool, the life of the deceased could have been saved. The necessary elements that are required to be satisfied to establish the tort of negligence, as set out by the Apex Court in the decision KTDC Vs. Deepti Singh (supra) are A legal duty to exercise due care;
Breach of the duty; and Consequential damages
16. As already noticed above, the club of the opposite parties is a place used by its members and their family that include women and children, apart from their guests. All such persons obtain entry into the club on payment of charges. The members are permitted entry on payment of the membership fee and the guests on payment of guest charges. Therefore, the swimming pool was part of the club premises accessible to the public, though restricted by membership. The management or the Authorities of the club owe a duty of care to such persons who are permitted by them to use the facilities of the club including the swimming pool. By not providing proper safety measures to persons who would require help in times of an emergency, they have committed breach of the said duty of care. In the above context, paragraph 15 of the judgement in KTDC Vs. Deepti Singh (supra) is relevant. Paragraph 15 reads as follows:
15. In the case before us, the deceased and the complainant were guests in the hotel run by the Appellant. Since the facility of a swimming pool was available for use by the guests of the hotel, there was a close and proximate relationship between the management involving the maintenance of safe conditions in the pool and guests of the hotel using the pool. A hotel which provides a swimming pool for its guests owes a duty of care. The duty of care arises from the fact that unless the pool is properly maintained and supervised by trained personnel, it is likely to become a potential source of hazard and danger. Every guest who enters the pool may not have the same level of proficiency as a swimmer. The management of the hotel can reasonably foresee the consequence which may arise if the pool and its facilities are not properly maintained. The observance of safety requires good physical facilities but in addition, human supervision over those who use the pool. Allowing or designating a life guard to perform the duties of a Bartender is a clear deviation from the duty of care. Mixing drinks does not augur well in preserving the safety of swimmers. The Appellant could have reasonably foreseen that there could be potential harm caused by the absence of a dedicated lifeguard. The imposition of such a duty upon the Appellant can be considered to be just, fair and reasonable. The failure to satisfy this duty of care would amount to a deficiency of service on the part of the hotel management.
17. On the question as to whether there has been a breach of duty, the Apex Court has laid down that a determination of the said question involved three steps. First one is to ascertain the quality of a reasonable person. Secondly, it must be asked how much care the reasonable person, given the qualities attributed to him, would have taken in the circumstances. Thirdly it must be determined whether the defendant took less care of the claimant's interest than the reasonable person would have taken.
18. It cannot be disputed that a swimming pool is a facility that would pose danger to human life. In the present case, the person who is described by the opposite party as a lifeguard is actually a swimming coach. In view of the above, the club of the opposite parties did not have a lifeguard appointed to perform the duty of saving a swimmer in distress. Therefore, we hold that the opposite parties had not acted with due diligence and care in safeguarding the lives of the users of their swimming pool. From the above reason, it is also held that the opposite parties had taken less care of the interests of the deceased than a reasonable person would have taken. Taking into account all the above factors, we hold that the opposite parties are guilty of deficiency in service. The postmortem report in this case shows that the cause of death was due to drowning. In view of the fact that there was no dedicated lifeguard on duty in the swimming pool at the relevant time, drowning of the deceased was a direct consequence of the negligence of the opposite parties. They are therefore liable to compensate the complainant for the death of his son.
Point No.2
19. The deceased was aged only twenty two years and was about to become a B.Tech graduate in Mechanical Engineering. He had a bright future ahead, he being the son of a father who was well employed in Dubai. He also had the prospect of obtaining a lucrative job there and pursuing his career. All that has been cut short by the unfortunate incident in which he lost his life. The complainant has been deprived of his son at such a young age. The grief and trauma caused to them are irreparable and incapable of being quantified in terms of money. However, since he was young, the uncertainties regarding his longevity also cannot be lost sight of. The deceased had not started earning an income. Assuming that he would have started earning shortly, it could be safely concluded that he would have been able to earn a substantial salary. But how long his salary would have benefited his parents is also beset with uncertainties. This is because they would lose the benefit of his earnings when he starts a family of his own. The complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.50,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty Lakhs) as compensation. Even after giving allowance for all the uncertainties referred to above, we are of the view that an amount of Rs.35,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs) can be estimated as the damages for the untimely loss of his son which would have certainly plunged the complainant into the depths of grief. The trauma of a parent at the loss of his son cannot be over emphasised. For all the above reasons, for the sufferings that he was forced to undergo, no amount of money would be sufficient but, in the totality of the facts and circumstances, we hope the amount stipulated above would be of some solace to his grieving heart. The amount shall carry interest @8% per annum from the date of filing this appeal till the date of payment. The opposite parties are directed to pay the amount of damages stipulated above within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement, failing which the same shall carry interest @9% per annum.
This complaint is therefore allowed as follows:
The opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.35,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs) to the complainant as damages for the loss of his son and the pain and sufferings caused to him by such loss within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement with interest thereon @8% per annum.
The complainant shall in addition be entitled to the costs of this litigation, which is quantified and fixed at Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) If the amounts are not paid within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgement, the amount of damages shall carry interest @9% per annum.
Dictated to my Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 24th day of August, 2023.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN :
PRESIDENT AJITH KUMAR D. :
JUDICIAL MEMBER BEENA KUMARY A. :
MEMBER SL C.C.No.75/2013 APPENDIX COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS PW1 Chandrasekharan Nair PW2 C.C. Jeesis COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS A1 Original Power of Attorney A2 Original death certificate of Abhijith V. A3 Copy of First Information Report dated 11.03.2013 A4 Copy of postmortem certificate dated 11.03.2013 A5 Copy of legal notice issued on behalf of the complainant to the opposite parties A6 Copy of reply notice dated 12.08.2013 A7 Application under Section 5 of RTI Act submitted by the counsel for the complainant and reply to the same A8 Application under Section 5 of RTI Act submitted by the counsel for the complainant and reply to the same OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS DW1 DW2 Suresh OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS B1 Original Authorisation letter B2 Copy of Registration Certificate B3 Copy of By-laws dated 31.03.2007 B4 Copy of conduct certificate issued by the club of opposite parties to Sri. Suresh V. B5 Copy of swimming course certificate issued by the Karnataka Swimming Association to Suresh V. B6 Copy of the instructions displayed in the notice board of the opposite parties B7 Copy of the letter issued to the Commissioner, Thrissur Municipality dated 11.10.1985 B8 Copy of the letter issued to the Commissioner, Thrissur Municipality dated 27.10.1985 B9 Copy of the proceedings of the Commissioner, Thrissur Municipality dated 05.11.1985 B10 Copy of the proceedings of the Commissioner, Thrissur Municipality dated 13.10.1986 B11 Copy of letter issued by the Commissioner, Thrissur Municipality dated 17.01.1986 B12 Copy of building estimate B13 Copy of plan of proposed compound wall & septic tank B14 Copy of elevation plan B15 Copy of plan to install water pump B16 Copy of letter dated 05.12.2013 issued by the Thrissur Corporation B17 Copy of FIR dated 11.03.2013 B18 Copy of statement of complainant to the Police dated 11.03.2013 B19 Copy of inquest report dated 11.03.2013 B20 Copy of Mahazor dated 11.03.2013 B21 Copy of final report dated 24.07.2013 COURT EXHIBITS C1 Commission Report PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN] PRESIDENT [ SMT.BEENAKUMARI.A] MEMBER [ SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R] MEMBER