w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Daud Ekka v/s Yatri Hotel & Another

    Complaint Case No. 225 of 2015

    Decided On, 08 February 2021

    At, West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER

    For the Complainant: Alok Mukhopadhyay, Rabindra Dey, Advocates. For the Opp. Parties: Prasanta Banerjee, Advocate.



Judgment Text

To narrate in brief, facts of the complaint case are that, Complainant€™s daughter, Tara Ekka, checked into the OP Hotel on 30-12-2014. Allegedly, at around 22.30 hrs. on the fateful night, there was an incidence of electric malfunctioning at the first floor of the Hotel. Though the authority was duly apprised of the matter, they did not pay any attention to the same. Subsequently, at around 01.00 hr. on 31-12-2014, fire broke out at the hotel causing unfortunate death of Complainant€™s daughter. Holding the OPs responsible for the untimely demise of his daughter, the Complainant filed the instant case.

By filing WV, the OPs stated that it was purely an accident beyond their control and as such, they cannot be held responsible for the accidental death of Complainant€™s daughter.

Both sides filed Affidavit-in-Chief in support of their contention. They also gave reply to the questionnaire being put forth from the other side. At the time of hearing, Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of their respective parties made spirited averments in support of their contention which I attentively heard.

I have seen the Chargesheet filed before the Court of the Ld. ACJM, Siliguri. The IO made no bones of the fact that the OPs blatantly flouted fire norms for which no preventive step could be taken during golden hours. It is indeed shocking to note that the OPs did not keep any fire extinguisher at the Hotel. No such document is furnished on behalf of the OPs to show that as on the date of fire incident, they held proper fire licence which is must to operate a Hotel. It is totally unacceptable that simply on account of the negligence of the Hotel authorities; the Complainant lost his beloved daughter. The Complainant stated in his complaint that he was fully dependent on his daughter, who was an employee of Southern Railway.The negligence of the OPs being palpable beyond any stretch of imagination, I have no qualms allowing this case.

Now, let me decide what should be the appropriate compensation though I fully appreciate the fact that human life is priceless and no amount of money is sufficient to compensate the life of a young blood.

From the Income Tax Projection for the financial year 2014-2015 being prepared by the Southern Railway, Chennai, it appears that, had she been alive, the Complainant€™s daughter would earn Rs. 2,12,776 or Rs. 17,731 p.m. during the aforesaid financial year. Incidentally she died at the age of 28 years.

As she was below the age of 40 years, an addition of 50% of the income should be the warrant. Thus, I presume that at the time of her retirement, the income of the victim would at least be Rs. 17,731 x 1.5, i.e., Rs. 26,597/- p.m.

As an earning member, the deceased would have spent some money for herself. Further, she would also incur expenditure towards conveyance. Therefore, I am of view that ends of justice would be met if one-third is deducted from the above projected income as the personal and living expenses of the deceased. After such deduction, her monthly contribution to the family is determined at Rs. 17,731/-.

The multiplier would be 17 having regard to the age of the victim. Therefore, the total loss of dependency would be Rs. 17,731 x 17 x 12, i.e., 36,17,124/-.

Together with this, the Complainant will be entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head of €˜loss of estate€™ and Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses.

Accordingly, I figure out the compensat

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ion sum as Rs. 36,17,124/- + Rs. 5,000/- + Rs. 5,000/- or Rs. 36,27,124/-. OPs shall pay this amount to the Complainant within 45 days from this day, i.d., the OPs shall invite additional payment of simple interest @ 4% over the aforesaid sum to the Complainant for the entire period of default. Lastly, I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the Complainant as litigation cost.
O R