|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, it will not because first of all, these are unfair and unreasonable terms being imposed by one party (the management of the amusement park), without the consent of the other (the user or the consumer). In fact, nobody even sees these so-called terms and conditions written on the back of the receipt. So obviously, such conditions are not binding on the consumer and those running the amusement park will certainly be liable for the consequences of their negligence. Or to put it differently, such terms and conditions cannot give them an escape route in case of an accident . In Tip Top Drycleaners vs Sunil Kumar (Revision Petition No 1328 of 2003) for example, the apex consumer court, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, made it clear that such unfair terms and conditions were not binding on the consumer. Dismissing the contention of the dry cleaner that the terms and conditions printed on the back of the receipt absolved him of any liability in respect of loss or destruction of clothes given for dry cleaning, the Commission pointed out that the consumer had not even seen them nor had he signed his acceptance of those.
Having said that, I would suggest that before visiting an amusement park, it is better to check their track record (the Internet is a good source) on safety. And while on these rides, follow scrupulously, all safety instructions. Are there any cases of consumer courts where they have awarded compensation to the victims of amusement park accidents? In Haryana Institute of Fine Arts vs Rajesh Mani Kaushik (RP NO 384 of 1999, decided on February 25, 2008), the complainant had sought Rs 4 lakh as compensation for the injuries and suffering undergone by him and his family on account of an accident involving a merry-go-round put up at a mela, Phulwari Children Bazar, in Karnal in 1996. The complainant had taken his wife and two children to the mela and they all decided to go on the ride. However, as the merry-go-round picked up full speed, its seats got detached and the family members went flying into space. As they landed on hard ground 15 yards away, they suffered serious injuries. The Karnal District Consumer Forum in this case awarded a compensation of Rs 20,000, but the State Consumer Commission enhanced it to Rs 1 lakh and held not only the owner of the merry-go-round and the operator responsible for the mishap, but also HIFA and its director and asked them to jointly and severally pay the compensation amount. This was upheld by the National Commission.
|
||
|
|
||
The
other day, I had taken my children to an amusement park and when I
bought the tickets for the rides, I noticed that they all carried on
the back of the ticket, some terms and conditions to the effect that
the park management will not be liable for any untoward incident
resulting in injury or death to those taking the rides. I hope the
rides are always safe, but I do want to know the legal position- in
case of an unfortunate accident, will these terms prevent the users
from seeking any damages?
In
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation vs Brojonath Ganguly
(6-4-1986), where the Supreme court discussed unfair and
unconscionable terms and conditions at length ( though in a different
context), its clear verdict was that the courts will not enforce
unfair and unreasonable contracts or will strike down unfair and
unreasonable terms in a contract, when they are between two parties
having unequal bargaining power.