KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 422/2023
JUDGMENT DATED: 20.07.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 36/2020 of CDRC, Idukki)
PRESENT:
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
The Secretary, Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Corporate Office, Muscot Square, Thiruvananthapuram-695 033.
(By Advs. P.A. Ahamed & Narayan R.)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- Soumya Vipin, W/o Vipin, Manavalan House, Chully P.O., Manjapra, Ernakulam-683 581.
- The Chairman, Tourism Promotion Council, District Collector, Idukki, Painavu-885 603.
- The Secretary, Elappara Grama Panchayath, Elappara P.O.,Pin-686 514.
- The Secretary, Union of India Tourism Department, Ministry of Tourism Transport Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110 011.
- Hindustan Prefab Ltd., (Govt. of India Enterprises), T.C. 24/656 (FF), Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram-695 014.
JUDGMENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the third opposite party in C.C. No. 36 of 2020 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Idukki (will be referred as District Commission in short). On 24.01.2023 the District Commission had directed the opposite parties 1& 3 to pay the complainant Rs. 1,60,153/- as hospital expenses, Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs.
2. The case of the complainant is that on 23.02.2019 the complainant and 25 others had arranged a tour program to Vagamon and the party had arrived at the Vagamon Paragliding Centre at about 2:00 p.m. They were permitted to enter the premises after collecting Rs. 10/- each as entry pass and Rs. 50/- towards vehicle pass. Several recreation facilities were arranged in the premises and in the hilltop. But no caution boards were installed in the premises to inform the parties with respect to the danger involved in the rides. On seeing the hanging rope the complainant entered into the Rope Bridge namely Burma Bridge. But unexpectedly one side of the iron rope broke down and the complainant and other persons fell down from the bridge and they sustained injuries. She was taken to the nearby hospital and it was seen that she had sustained serious injuries to her Spinal Cord and a fracture to the L2 vertebra. She was later admitted in St. James Hospital, Chalakkudi and treated till 01.03.2019. She had to spend Rs. 1,90,000/- as medical expenses. According to her the accident happened on account of the deficiency in service on the side of all the opposite parties. When entry passes are issued, the respondents are duty bound to ensure that no harm or danger would happen to the visitors.
3. Believing the contentions raised in the complaint on the basis of the oral evidence by the complainant as PW1 and Exhibits P1 to P5 the impugned order was passed.
4. The appellant would contend that the order of the District Commission that the entire 100 acres of land is within the control of the DTPC & KTDC is wrong as the appellant has no operations or activities at Vagamon. According to the appellant there is no consumer relation between the appellant and the complainant.
5. Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the appeal memorandum and the order passed by the District Commission. On perusal of the order of the District Commission it could be seen that the appellant though received the notice from the District Commission remained absent. On expiry of 45 days from the date of receipt of the notice from the District Commission the appellant has no right to contest the matter on merits. In view of the judicial interpretation given by the Constitution Bench in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757 the District Commission has no authority to extend the period prescribed for receiving the version. So no purpose will be served in admitting the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that there are no materials before the District Commission to fasten the liability on the appellant. On going through the order passed by the District Commission it cannot be said that the District Commission had passed the order without any materials. Since no useful purpose will be served in admitting the appeal we are inclined to dismiss the appeal.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
AJITH KUMARD.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
jb RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
