Page 273 - DMGT306_MERCANTILE_LAWS_II
P. 273
Mercantile Laws – II
Notes The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 section 27 mentions that “Penalties” will occur:
Where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made [or the complainant] fails or
omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the
National Commission, as the case may be, such trader or person [or complainant] shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may
extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees but which
may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both:
Provided that the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the
case may be, may, if it is satisfied that the circumstances of any case so require, impose a sentence
of imprisonment or fine, or both, for a term lesser than the minimum term and the amount
lesser than the minimum amount, specified in this section.
Self Assessment
Fill in the blanks:
14. The complaint to be filed must be signed by the consumer or his ………………….
15. Consumer protection is a movement to safeguard the interest of ………………….
Caselet Failure to Provide Basic Safeguards in the Swimming
Pool – Deficiency in Service
n the case of Sashikant Krishnaji Dole v. Shitshan Prasarak Mandali [F.A. No. 134 of
1993 decided on 27.9.1995 (NCDRC)] the school owned a swimming pool and offered
Iswimming 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 complainants 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
drowned 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.
The State Commission held the school and the coach deficient in rendering service to the
deceased, that the coach was not fully trained, did not exercise even the basic common
sense needed to counter an accident in swimming. He was so casual in his behaviour that
he did not attempt to take prompt action to save the life of the deceased and so far as the
school was concerned it did not even provide basic facilities nor did it provide any
safeguards to prevent accidents.
Dismissing the appeal 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.
Contd....
268 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY
