BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

C.C.No. 208 OF 2018

Between:

N.Nagapunna Rao, S/o.N.Pothu Raju

Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business,

R/o.14-20-677/305/A, V.V.Nagar,

Borabanda, Balanagar, Ranga Reddy District, T.S.

N.Krishna Latha, W/o.N.Nagapunna Rao,

Aged about 40 years, Occ: Housewife,

R/o.14-20-677/305/A, V.V.Nagar,

Borabanda, Balanagar, Ranga Reddy District, T.S.

                              …Complainants

And

1. The Principal,

    Jagruthi Institute of Engineering & Technology,

    Koheda Road, Chintapalliguda Village,

    Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,

    T.S. – 501510.

2. The Chairman,

    Jagruthi Institute of Engineering & Technology,

    Koheda Road, Chintapalliguda Village,

    Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,

    T.S. – 501510.                                                                         …Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainants       : M/s.J.Rajeswar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties  :  Admission stage  

QUORUM:    HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL, PRESIDENT 

&

HON’BLE SRI K.RAMESH, MEMBER

MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHTEEN.

Oral Order : (Per Hon’ble Justice Sri. M.S.K.Jaiswal, President).

                                                         ***

          This complaint is filed under Section 17 (1)(a) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying this Commission to pay an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- to the Complainants towards compensation for loss of death of their son namely Nandipati Mani Sai Prasanth due to gross negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties and to pay costs of the complaint.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Complainants.

The case of the Complainants in brief is that, their son N.M.S.Prashant was admitted in the B.Tech course of the Opposite Party College and was pursuing his engineering course during the year 2016-17 onwards. Their son was attending the college in the transportation provided by the college. The timings of the college were from 9.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. On 13.12.2016, at about 3.00 P.M. the said Prashant is said to have gone out of the college on an Activa Scooter No.TS10 EA 5148 and was proceeding from Koheda Church towards the college. At that time on the road, the said Prashant met with an accident involving another motor cycle and died on the spot.

Alleging that the Prashant died due to the negligence of the Management of the college allowing him to go out of the college during the college hours amounts to deficieny and a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- is claimed.

A bare reading of the complaint shows that there was neither negligence nor deficiency on the part of the Management of the college where the deceased Prashant was studying his engineering course. Admittedly, the accident took place on the road when the boy was proceeding from Koheda Church towards the college on a motor cycle along with his friend. In this act of the deceased, the Management can by no stretch of imagination be said to be in any way responsible for the unfortunate tragedy that has taken place.

          We see no force in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Complainants that the Management of the college ought not to have allowed an engineering student to go out of the college during the college hours and that they ought not to have opened the gate. It is not as though that the deceased was a boy of tender age so that he could have been prevented from going on to the road during college hours. Upon carefully perusing the material on record and hearing the submissions, we are of the opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be rejected.

          Accordingly the complaint is rejected at the stage of admission.

PRESIDENT        MEMBER  

                                                                                         Dt.19.11.2018