LexVADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION versus PURSHOTTAM V. MURJANI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014) 7 S.C.R. 810 VADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. PURSHOTTAM V. MURJANI AND ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 3594-3611 of 2010) SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Deficiency in service - C Compensation - Boat carrying 38 passengers as against the capacity of 22 passengers, capsized resulting in death of 22 passengers - Municipal Corporation supervised boating activities - Contractor took contract for plying the boat and took insurance policy - Claim for compensation - Corporation and D contractor held jointly and severally liable by forums below - Insurance Company to pay Rs.20 lakhs for each accident- death but aggregate sum limited to Rs. 80 lakhs - Interference with - Held: Not called for - Victims were consumers and the cqntractor was service provider - Passengers neither provided E life saving jackets nor life guard deployed - Deficiency of service stood established - Also primary liability of the contractor established - Mere appointment of a contractor or employee did not absolve the Corporation of its liability to supervise the boating activities - Bombay Provincial F Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 - ss. 62, 63 and 66. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The finding of negligence concurrently recorded by the State Commission and the National G Commission does not call for any interference. Primary liability of the contractor stands established. The victims were consumers and the contractor was service provider. Deficiency of service stood established. The Insurance Company having issued policy covering loss to the H 810 VADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. 811 PURSHOTTAM V. MURJANI extent of Rs.20 lakhs per accident with Rs.80 lakhs as A maximum in one year, could ·not avoid its responsibility. [Para 16] [818-D-F] 1.2 The activity In question was covered by the statutory duty of the Corporation u/ss. 62, 63, 66 of the 8 Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. Mere appointment of a contractor or employee did not absolve the Corporation of its liability to supervise the boating activities particularly when there are express stipulations in the contract entered into with the contractor. The Corporation was not only discharging its statutory duties C but also was acting as service provider to the passengers through its agent. The Corporation had a duty of care, when activity of plying boat is inherently dangerous and there is clear forseeability of such occurrence unless precautions are taken like providing D life saving jackets.[Para 17] [818-H; 819-A-C] 1.3 There is a need for a comprehensive legislation dealing with tortious liability of the State and its instrumentalities in such cases for certainty on the E subject. The Law Commission is requested to look into the matter and take such steps as may be found necessary. [Para 19] [821-C, D] Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Kai/ash F Nath Kothari 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 724:(1997) 7 SCC 481; Motor Owner's Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jadavji Keshavji Mod/ 1982 (1) SCR 860:(1981) 4 sec 660; Ravneet Singh Bagga vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. 1999 (4) Suppl. SCR 320:(2000) 1 SCC 66;Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association & Ors. 2011 (16) SCR G 1 :(2011) 14 sec 481-referred to. Case Law Reference: 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 724 Referred to Para 5 H A 812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1982 (1) SCR 860 Referred to 1999 (4) Suppl. SCR 320 Referred to 2011 (16) SCR 1 Referred to [2014] 7 S.C.R. Para 6 Para 6 Para 18 B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.3594-3611 of 2010. c D E From the Judgment and Order dated 02.11.2006 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in first Appeal No. 464 of 2002 and 61 to 77 of 2004. WITH C.A. Nos. 3630, 3631, 3647, 3632, 3633, 3634, 3635, 3636, 3638, 3646, 3639, 3640, 3641, 3642, 3643, 3644, 3645, 3648 and 3612-3629 of 2010. R.S. Suri, P.K. Seth Manjeet Chawla, Avinash Kumar, Pallavi Tayal, Tanuj Bhushan (for Suresh A. Shroff & Co.) and Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Tabinda Syed, K.L. Janjani for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. These appeals have been preferred against the Judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short "NCDRC") dated F 2nd November, 2006 in F.A. Nos.464/2002 and 61 to 77 of 2004 by the Vadodara Muni
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.