|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Merry-go-rounds, giant wheels and similar swinging mechanisms are a common sight at melas and carnivals around the country and are a great attraction for children. All the more reason for those who organise such melas to ensure that such sources of entertainment also remain free of hazards and are, thereby, safe. Remember the tragedy at Surajkund Crafts Mela in 2001? Four persons were killed and about 14 seriously injured when the boat-shaped giant swing installed there overturned at a height of over 50 feet. Even when the sub-standard giant swing malfunctioned, the riders could have been saved had the swing been provided with proper seat belts to hold the occupants to their seats. But all that the swing had was a flimsy latch bar, which provided no protection when the swing overturned. In the last week of February this year, the apex consumer court dealt with another such accident at a mela in Karnal in 1996, and held not just those who were providing the services of the swing but also those who had organised the fair liable for the consequences of negligent service. This order should force all those who organise melas and provide such entertainment to keep in mind the safety factor at all times. In this particular case, the Haryana Institute of Fine Arts had organised a fair for children by taking on hire some land from the Haryana Urban Development Authority. Called Phulwari Children’s Bazar, the five-day fair offered a variety of entertainment, food and shopping. The merry-go-round was part of the bazar. On that fateful day in November, R.M. Kaushik got on to the ride along with his two children. However, their joy turned to shock when the swing suddenly gained great momentum, and even as they panicked, the seat on which the family was seated got detached from the fulcrum, hurling them all at a great speed to a distance of about 15 yards or so on to the hard ground. Fortunately, all the four escaped with injuries. Kaushik filed a complaint before the district forum in Karnal, seeking from the organisers of the carnival and the owner of the merry-go-round a compensation of Rs 4 lakh for the injuries suffered, and also refund of the money spent on medical treatment. When the forum held only the owner and the driver of the jhula liable and awarded a compensation of only Rs 20,000, Kaushik filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The state commission not only increased the compensation to Rs 1 lakh but also held that the institute and its director were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, along with the owner and the driver of the jhula. Aggrieved, the institute and its director filed a revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, questioning this decision. Their contention was that they did not charge any fee from those visiting the fair and that they had no supervisory authority over the running of the merry-go-round. Dismissing their petition, the apex court pointed out that the institute had paid Rs 7,500 towards the land but had collected Rs 10,000 from the swing owner for putting up the merry-go-round, who in turn collected a fee from consumers. This indirectly amounted to the institute charging fee from the consumers. Thus the institute and its director were also service providers along with the owner and the driver of the swing. Further, it was the duty of the institute and its director to supervise all such equipment that was installed on the premises hired by them for holding the fair and ensure that they were safe. They were in overall control of Phulwari Children’s Bazar and it was their duty to have taken adequate care and precaution to ensure that untoward incidents did not occur. They failed in this duty to take due care. This constituted deficiency in service and negligence, the commission observed. Two years ago in the case of Vadodara Municipal Corporation vs Purshottam V.Murjani and others, the apex court had dismissed the contention of the corporation that only the company that was contracted to ply the boats for joy rides was liable to pay compensation to the victims of the boat tragedy that had happened earlier. It had held that the corporation, which was managing the Sursagar lake, was equally liable. Because of overcrowding, a boat had capsized in the lake, resulting in the death of 22 persons. Orders such as these will compel those who run such amusement parks, boat clubs, melas and carnivals to ensure that safety norms are implemented.
|
||
|
|
||
