consumer case(CC) No. op/02/849
Dream World Water Theam Park and Hotels Pvt Ltd
United Indian Insurance Company. TSR
1. Padmini Sudheesh
2. Rajani P.S.
3. Sasidharan M.S
1. K. Premarajan
1. Dream World Water Theam Park and Hotels Pvt Ltd
2. United Indian Insurance Company. TSR
1. V. R. Ramachandran
1. K. K. Gopinathan
2. I. I. Antony
By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
The first respondent is conducting an amusement park by name Dream World Water Theme Park and Hotels (P) Ltd. The Park is insured with the 2nd respondent. On 18.3.2002 the complainant along with his friends visited the park with sufficient ticket. The complainant entered the water slider at 2-45 PM. The functioning of water slider is that the person who slides through it will fall into the water pool which is situated down to the water slider. The complainant with the direction of security guard entered into the slider and fell in the water pool. At that time he was hit with the head of PW2 who was entered the slider just before him. So the complainant sustained injury to his neck. He was taken to St. James Hospital, Chalakudy and was referred to Metropolitan Hospital, Thrissur. There he was admitted and surgery was conducted. Iron rod and plate were fitted on the back side of neck and did not remove so far. The complainant has incurred medical expenses of Rs.40,000/- and in order to remove the rod and plate Rs.15,000/- is expected. The complainant is an Autorickshaw driver and he and his family is living out of the income derived from the Auto. The income is approximately Rs.6000/-. Because of the accident he cannot drive the vehicle. He has still the complaints of pain to neck. In order to get compensation and treatment expenses he had sent lawyer notice and first respondent replied with the notice but no remedy so far. The averments in the reply notice are not true. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter of first respondent is as follows: This respondent is running an amusement park namely Dream World and there are a large number of equipments in the park for the entertainment of children and adults. Those who use these equipments for entertainment are under their own responsibility. The complainant has not taken any ticket to enter into the respondent park. This respondent has arranged sufficient number of workers for supervising and operating the equipments. It was not possible for the occurrence of accident as stated by the complainant in the water sliding. Only one person is admitted in the water sliding and there is one employee at the beginning and one is at the end to look after the safety. A person is allowed to enter into the sliding only after making it sure that there is no one in the pool at the bottom and these directions are clearly exhibited to the visitors. Hence there is no chance to occur any accident and no accident has been reported earlier. And if any accident happened in the park there is facility for giving first aid within the park and if any serious incident happens vehicles are available within the park carrying the victim to the nearby hospital. No deficiency in service has been committed by this respondent. Hence dismiss the complaint.
3. The counter of 2nd respondent is that the 2nd respondent has been impleaded solely because the first respondent in their reply notice has stated that their amusement park has been insured with this respondent. The petitioner or the first respondent have not cared to furnish the policy particulars together with the period of validity of policy without which this respondent denied the policy. The various remarks made in the petition such he has visited the amusement on 18.3.2002, he took part in water sliding game met with an accident in the pool, sustained injuries and treated outside hospital are matters not known to this respondent and hence he is put under strict proof. Even if this respondent happens to admit policy later on it is submitted that it is subject to terms and conditions attached. Hence dismiss.
4. The points for consideration are
(1) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of respondents?
(2) If so, reliefs and costs.
5. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P9 and depositions of PWs-1 and 2 on the part of complainant and Exts. R1 and R2 on the part of respondents.
6. Points-1 & 2: Ext. P1 is the copy of entry ticket issued by Concepts India Marketing and according to the complainant by this ticket he along with his friends entered the first respondent Amusement Park. In the counter the first respondent denied the entry of petitioner into the park. The complainant is examined as PW1 and during cross examination for first respondent he deposed that on 2002 March 18th he had visited the park by taking ticket from an agency named Concepts India Marketing. It was asked that the complainant was not visited the Dream World Amusement Park on 18.3.2002 and is denied by him. In the reply notice which is marked as Ext. P6 the first respondent totally denied the case of complainant and in the counter also they taken the same version and stated in the counter that if any liability is found it is to be made by the 2nd respondent. The Company and first respondent produced the policy details and marked as Ext. R1 and R2. The definite case of complainant is that immediately after the accident he was taken to St. James Hospital, Chalakudy and he produced Ext. P2 certificate issued from the same hospital. In Ext. P2 the Doctor certified that as per records the complainant came here on 18.3.02 at 5.55 P.M. with history of his neck collided with his friend’s head while sliding down through water slides into the water pool at Dream World Water Park, Chalakudy on 18.3.02. In the complaint it is stated that the complainant and his friends entered into the park at 2.45 P.M. and the consultation in St. James Hospital, Chalakudy was at 5.55 P.M. The history of injury stated by the complainant is recorded in Ext. P2 and there is nothing to think otherwise. In the counter the first respondent stated that the accident occurred to the complainant may be by motor accident. If it was so the police should register crime and there is no evidence regarding this aspect. The first respondent only alleging matters without any basis. The complainant has no need to make a big lie to the doctor who was treated him in the St. James Hospital, Chalakudy. Ext. P3 the discharge summary issued from Metropolitan Hospital also says the history of injury as head hit against his friend’s head while sliding down in water slides into the water pool. The medical records confirmed the case of complainant and the first respondent trying to escape from the liability by simply alleging matters. They did not even take steps to call for the doctors who have issued Exts. P2 and P3.
7. The case of complainant is that his head while sliding through water slider hit against the head of his friend Girish. The friend is examined as PW2 and he admitted that the accident was occurred and he had only complaints of pain. The version of PW1 and PW2 is that only because of the carelessness of security guards of first respondent Park the accident was occurred. During cross examination for first respondent it was asked to PW2 that at the time of sliding he was under the influence of alcohol. But there is no such question asked to complainant. So the version taken by the first respondent is not sustained. There is also no cross examination on every aspects stated in the proof affidavit.
8. There is no oral evidence adduced by Respondents-1 and 2. They have produced only Exts. R1 and R2 and submitted no oral evidence to them. In the counter the first respondent stated that if any liability is occurred it is to be made by the 2nd respondent. In the counter of 2nd respondent there is no denial of such a contention. They only stated that the complainant or the first respondent has not cared to furnish the policy particulars. So they made a request before the Forum to direct the other parties to furnish the policy particulars to them. There is no serious contention in the counter of 2nd respondent Company. They did not deny their liability towards the complainant. During cross examination also they did not put questions in support of their case. They have no serious case at all.
9. The complainant produced Ext. P7 series bills to show the expenses incurred to him. In the complaint he stated that Rs.40,000/- was the medical expenditure, but as per Ext. P7 series bills the medical expenses are Rs.29,052.50. So he is entitled only to get this amount from the respondents. In the complaint he stated that Rs.15,000/- will be incurred for removing the plate and rod. The complaint is filed in the year 2002 and there is no evidence brought by him at this juncture to show that these things were removed and incurred an expense of Rs.15,000/-. So he is not entitled to get this amount. There is serious deficiency in service on the part of first respondent in not providing vehicle facility and such other things to take the complainant in hospital. In the counter they stated that there is well facilities to treat the visitors if any accident is occurred. From the records it is clear that they did not even used facilities availed to them to get the complainant to hospital and to give first aid. So the first respondent is liable to pay compensation to the complainant.
10. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the 2nd respondent is directed to pay only the amount shown in Ext. P7 series bills and the first respondent is directed to pay
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation with costs Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant with in one month.