Defect Must Be Established Through Proper Analysis Before Compensation Is Granted: NCDRC

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, held that before any compensation can be granted, the presence of a defect must be thoroughly verified through proper and detailed analysis.

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant, along with his wife, attended a wedding at Blue Coast Hotels and Resorts owned by Parkhyatt Goa Resort. The complainant and his wife checked into a room at the resort and found it pleasant, though they noticed the bathroom was unusual but did not raise concerns. After attending a lunch, the complainant slipped in the bathroom and sustained injuries. He received medical attention, was flown to Mumbai for further treatment, underwent surgery, and was later discharged. The complainant alleges that he was unable to perform his normal duties for a year. He sent a notice, followed by several reminders, requesting compensation from the resort. The resort's insurers denied any negligence or inaction in response to the complainant's claims through their legal representatives. Consequently, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission of of Goa which allowed the complaint. It directed the resort to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.9,33,400 to the complainant with costs of Rs.10,000. Aggrieved, the resort filed an appeal before the National Commission.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The resort argued that the complainant had admitted the bathroom was not dangerous and had raised no concerns about its design or use. No expert evidence was provided to support claims of defective design, and the bathroom was approved by authorities. The resort also stated that anti-skid Tumble Rock marble was used, not Egyptian marble as claimed, and no previous accidents or complaints had occurred. The bathroom was regularly cleaned according to standard procedures. Additionally, the resort contended that the compensation awarded by the State Commission was disproportionate and unsupported by evidence, as the complainant failed to provide a detailed breakdown of medical expenses, loss of business, or other claims. The resort emphasized that compensation should be based on proven facts and proper legal principles, not assumptions or guesswork.

Observations by the National Commission

The National Commission observed that the key issue was whether there was a deficiency in service by the resort. After reviewing the facts and evidence, the Commission noted that no expert opinion was sought to support the claim of a defective bathroom design, as required under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. The State Commission's finding of a design defect was based on its own interpretation of photographs rather than expert analysis. The procedure for determining such defects, outlined under the Act, was not followed. The Commission emphasized that a defect must be established through proper analysis before any compensation can be granted, citing the cases of M/s Saubhagya Kalpataru Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sucheta Diesel Sales Services and Classic Automobile vs. Lila Nand Mishra. It was also acknowledged that the complainant found the room pleasant upon check-in and did not raise concerns until after the incident. The existence of a handle bar in the bathroom was noted as a safety feature. The Commission concluded that the State Commission erred in its judgment by declaring the bathroom design defective without expert evidence. Therefore, the State Commission's order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Case Title: Parkhyatt Goa Resort & Spa & Anr Vs. Vinay Rajkumar Rajpal

Case Number: F.A. No. 285/2012

Click Here To Read/Download Order