A school owned a swimming pool and offered swimming facilities to the public on payment of a fee. The school conducted winter and summer training camps to train boys in swimming and for this purpose engaged a trainer/coa

CS Executive · Economic and Commercial Laws · PYQS · June 2021
A school owned a swimming pool and offered swimming facilities to the public on payment of a fee. The school conducted winter and summer training camps to train boys in swimming and for this purpose engaged a trainer/coach. The complainant had enrolled their son for learning swimming under the guidance of the coach. It was alleged that due to the negligence of the coach the boy was allowed and met with his death. The school denied that it had engaged the services of a coach and also denied any responsibility on its part. The coach claimed that he was a person with considerable experience in coaching young boys in swimming and that as in other cases he taught the deceased boy also the way in which he should swim and take all precautions while swimming. When the deceased was found to have been drowned, the coach immediately took him out of the water and removed the water from his stomach and gave him artificial respiration and thereafter took him to a doctor, where he died. In view of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 decide whether the school and coach are liable for deficient in rendering service to the deceased.

Answer & Explanation:

The present case is similar to the case of Sashikant Krishnaji Dole v. Shitshan Prasarak Mandali . In this case the National Commission observed that the State Commission had given cogent reasons for holding the school and the coach responsible for death of the deceased. A detailed examination of the depositions of eye witnesses showed that the Commission had correctly appreciated the evidence and come to the conclusion that the coach was negligent and the school did not provide the necessary life saving mechanism to save the lives of trainee students in cases of accidents. So far as the compensation was concerned the State Commission had taken all relevant factors into account and fixed the amount of compensation. According to the Consumer Protection Act, deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. In view of the above case and Consumer Protection Act the school and coach are liable for deficiency in rendering services to the deceased.

Topics: Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Open in Interactive Practice Hub · Full Practice Hub · Chapter Weightage · More in this subject

Related Questions in this Topic