By Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President

            On 4/6/05  the complainant along with her family members and relatives visited the 1^st respondent water park at about 9.30am.  The cost of tickets was Rs.1,970/-.  At that time  complementary coupons were also issued to them.  While riding the boat the complainant  fell into the boat and fracture caused to her left hand.  Immediately  she was taken to Primary Health Centre., Athirappilly along with a  staff of 1^st respondent but no treatment  was given from P.H.C.  So she was taken to Dhanya Mission Hospital, Chalakkudy and treated there.  Later she was  admitted in Royal Hospital, Kunnamkulam and operation was conducted.  She was admitted in that hospital on 4/6/05 to 9/6/05.  The complainant had incurred  an amount of Rs.30,000/- as treatment expenses.  The accident was  occurred  only because of the negligence of 1^st respondent.  The iron rode which was fixed in the boat to holdby the riders was in a loose condition.  So the accident was occurred.  There was deficiency in service from 1^st respondent.  So a lawyer notice was issued dated 13/6/05 and the averment in the reply  sent by 1^st respondent are untrue.  Hence the complaint.

          2. The counter of 1^st respondent is that  it is admitted that the complainant  along with her family  members visited 1^st respondent water park on 4/6/05 and taken tickets for Rs.1,970/-.  It is denied that fracture was caused to the left hand of complainant while boat riding.  It is denied that the complainant was admitted in Kunnamkulam Royal Hospital and conducted  operation.  It is also denied that Rs.30,000/- was the treatment expenses.  There is no deficiency in service from 1^st respondent.  There are no defects to the instruments installed in the water park and  periodical maintenance  is giving to all the machines.  The averment in the reply notice are correct.  Since the 1^st respondent is insured with 2^nd respondent the 2^nd respondent will be liable for the damages if any ordered.  Hence dismiss.

          3. The counter of 2^nd respondent is to the effect that this respondent denies that the complainant has sustained injury to the hand in the premises of  Silver Storm water Theme Park.  There was no documentary evidence to show that the complainant had sustained injuries from the particular game.  The incident was happened due to the negligence  of the complainant.  If due care has taken by the complainant she would have been avoided such an incident.  Her own negligence caused such incident.  So this respondent  is not liable to give any compensation.  There were other members  accompanying the complainant  but only this complainant happened injury.  This respondent is not aware of the incident.  There was  no police case registered.  Hence dismiss.

          4. Points for consideration are :

1) Was there any deficiency in service from 1^st respondent?

2) If so reliefs and costs ?

          5. The evidence adduced consists of Exhibits P1 to P7 series, Exhibit R1 and oral testimony of PW1.

          6. Points: The complaint is for compensation for the injury sustained by the complainant while riding  the play boat in the 1^st respondent water park.  It is the case of complainant that while riding the play boat the complainant fell down by hitting her right hand on the boat and sustained fracture.  1^st respondent filed counter  admitting the accident but denied the fracture on her  left hand since she was thoroughly diagnosed  at Athirappilly Primary Health Centre.  They also contended that the accident was occurred  due to the negligent act by not following safety measures published  by 1^st respondent.  The complainant examined  as PW1 and she deposed that the staff of 1^st respondent intimated   every thing with regard to the boat race to her and her team.  According to her the accident was only because  of the loose functioning of the iron rod which was fixed in the boat to hold by the riders.  But there is no such case in the complaint.  But the accident was admitted by 1^st respondent and the contributory negligent on the part of complainant  is not proved  beyond doubt.  The Exhibits produced by her are marked as P1 to P7 series in which  a document of treatment from Royal Hospital, Kunnamkulam is also there.

          7. According to 1^st respondent the treatment  at Royal Hospital is not for the injury sustained in the water park.  According to them even though  the accident was occurred in their premises they have taken care of her and took her to the nearest Primary Health Centre.  The counsel for 1^st respondent filed an argument note in which it is stated that it is pertinent to mention here that at the Primary Health Centre there was no fracture,  but at Dhanya and Royal Hospitals there was fracture on her left hand.  It may happen that from her journey from water theme park  to Chalakkudy she might have suffered  injuries.  There are no documents from Dhanya hospital produced.  In Exhibit P1, the discharge card from Royal hospital it would show injury to left hand.  The date of admission as per Exhibit P1 is 4/6/05, the day of accident itself.  There is no evidence to show that some other accident had happened  to complainant and sustained injuries.  The contention of 1^st respondent is not at all reliable.  Since there is no evidence to show that the complainant  was admitted in Royal hospital to some other treatment, it is to be believed that she had admitted in that hospital for the treatment sustained to her left hand in the premises of 1^st respondent.  So the complainant is entitled to get compensation, also.

          8. The 2^nd respondent is insurance company and was impleaded later by knowing of insurance contract with 1^st respondent.  The company produced Exhibit R1 to show the policy existing between the respondents.  The accident was well within the policy period and the 2^nd respondent is bound to indemnify the complainant.

          9. In the result the complaint is allowed and the 2^nd respondent is directed to pay Exhibit P7 series bills amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint till realization with cost Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) within a month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Since interest is allowed no separate compensation is necessary.

          Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the  29^th  day of November 2010.