JUDGMENT - A.A. HALBE, PRESIDENT, :---This is a complaint by the father of the deceased son Sachin who was drowned in the swimming-pool of the opponent on 24-4-94. The father has claimed the compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the ground that Sachin was his younger son amongst only two sons; that he would have been the bread-winner of the family in the future since he had a bright academic career and further that the loss of Sachin has left a void in the life of his parents. 2.The facts are that for the Summer Swimming Classes of 1994, the complainant registered the name of his son Sachin with the opponent which runs the swimming-pool at Nagpur. On the fateful day of 24-4-94 which was Sunday, Sachin went for swimming in the evening batch but he never returned. His batch was over and the next batch had entered the swimming-pool and it is during this time that one of the coaches engaged in training the students in swimming felt the entanglement of the leg with his leg. He, therefore, suspected something foul and directed all swimmers to withdraw from the pool and took out the dead-body of a boy which was that of Sachin. The father had, therefore, filed the above complaint. 2.1.According to the complainant father, the swimming-pool was not upto the mark; that the bottom of the swimming-pool could not be seen from the top and that there was no proper supervision of the coaches over the swimmers. It is also stated that the swimmers were not properly trained and that brought about this sordid episode. 3.This has been opposed by the opponent. One Jagdish Balkrishna Suklikar has filed the affidavit on behalf of the opponent Deen Dayal Shodh Sanstha. He is the President of the said Sanstha. According to the opponent, the complainant's son was not the swimmer; that the swimming-pool was constructed to conduct the swimming-training centre on 'no loss - no profit" basis; that there was no negligence on the part of the management and further that there was no question of trained staff being employed; that the swimming-pool has been constructed according to the Plan approved by the Nagpur Improvement Trust and that as against the permitted number of 63 students, only 39 students registered for that period. There was, therefore, no negligence on the part of the opponent; both in regard to the maintainance and supervision. It is also contended that Criminal Case was registered against some of the coaches who were later on acquitted in criminal case No. 250/94 by the learned Judicial Magistrate at Nagpur. The main contention of the opponent is that this is purely a case of accident and not arising out of negligence. All the same, it is admitted that although Sachin's membership was for 'non-swimmers zone', his body was found in the swimmers-zone. 4. The learned Counsel for the opponent has vehemently contended that Sachin was not the swimmer and secondly that there was no negligence. We may refer to some of the admitted facts which have emerged from the submissions of the parties. Sachin was stipulated for the evening batch and that the time slot was 35-40 minutes and not 80 minutes. The batch of Sachin had withdrawn from the swimming-pool. But Sachin was not to be found amongst them. He was discovered as drowned by the tutor of the subsequent batch and that his body was found in the swimmers-zone where the water depth was around 8-9'. For the non-swimmers zone, the depth is hardly 2½ - 3'. Now, on careful consideration of these circumstances, we firstly dwell upon the question of supervision. The management must be fully aware that the boys between the age 13-15 years are neither children nor adolescents. Their behaviour is most unpredictable. There are many chances of their departing from the normal course of behaviour. It is likely that some boys may be conversant in swimming whereas the some may not be. Their inclination to leave or to enter the swimming-pool may vary from one to another. 5.The learned Counsel for the opponent contended that the identity-card of the boy Sachin was with the Guard. It was submitted by some boy who can be identified as Harish who was complaining about the absence of Sachin. Here one important incriminating circumstance which creeps in is that the card was with the other boy or with the watchman whereas the actual boy was not present at the time of depositing or with- drawing the card. It was the bounden duty of the watchman to have cleared one after another boy of the batch. That means that the entire batch was not cleared by the watchman. It was the bounden duty of the watchman to have cleared one after another boy of the batch. That means that the entire batch was not cleared by the watchman. He lost sight of the important fact that one boy whose card was there was not to be found. Still no immediate attempts were made by that watchman to track down the missing boy. (5.1) It was unfortunate that the body of Sachin was found around 7.45 p.m. and that too when the other batch was in the swimming-pool. The other aggrevating circumstance is that the dead body was found in the swimmer-zone (deep water zone of the swimming pool). One fails to understand as to how Sachin could enter that zone beyond the knowledge of persons present there. This is a glaring instance of slack supervision on the part of the management. We fail to understand as to how the boy who was supposed to have withdrawn with his batchmate came back to the swimming-pool and took a dip in the swimmers-zone which was not permissible for him. He was found drowned in that portion. We are unable to fathom the extent of negligence on the part of the management i.e. the guard and the instructors. This is not a case of accident but a case which is squarely a case of negligence on the part of the management. 6.It is also unfortunate that the body remained in the swimming-pool for nearly more than 30 minutes. The boy did not come in contact i.e. the dead body did not come in contact with any of the swimmers. It is when the second batch which was about to be over that the leg of Sachin came in contact with the leg of one instructor. We feel that we are unable to read anything less than the negligence on the part of the management. 7.The other factors which high-light the indifference of those present is that even the parents of other swimmers were present and they could not locate Sachin. There must have been hub hub at the swimming-pool and that too must have distracted the attention of the guards and the instructors. Such a situation created is not permissible under the rules of proper care caution. Swimming-pool is a place of pleasure and at the same time sorrow in case some mishap happens. There must have been hub hub at the swimming-pool and that too must have distracted the attention of the guards and the instructors. Such a situation created is not permissible under the rules of proper care caution. Swimming-pool is a place of pleasure and at the same time sorrow in case some mishap happens. The management is duty bound to take utmost care to see that the trainees are kept under supervision. No laxity on that count can be allowed on the ground that drowning took place - accidentally. It is not a road-side event. Swimming-pools are located in specific area and hence the question of supervision need not pose any problem. It would be ridiculous to say that monitoring is not possible or impracticable. If such a situation arises, the swimming-pool should be stopped. We here emphasize that management is cast with the duty of providing full proof arrangement to see that no untoward incident like one in this case, takes place. Entry and exit of trainees should be closely monitored and actual swimming should be minutely guided. 8.We may here reiterate that the swimmers were not the adolescents. The swimmers were young boys and they could have preponsities to do one or the other mischief. We feel the possibility of Sachin taking the second dip in the pool just to confirm that he has become a seasoned swimmer. The dip was obviously in the swimmers zone and that too within the sight of all and sundry present at the swimming-pool. We are, therefore, of the view that this is a clear case which invites awarding of compensation to the complainant. 9.The President of the appellant Sanstha has been made as a party to the complaint. But we are aware that there is no liability of the President - personally. He represents the Sanstha Deendayal Shodh Sanstha, Bal Jagat, Nagpur. That would not be his - personal liability. It is the liability of the Sanstha. 10.Briefly stated, we feel that there was negligence on the part of the tutors as well as the guards; that there was no systematic method of checking the boys who had completed the swimming and the boys who were about to enter for swimming. There was no proper identification of the students by the guard and that there was no close supervision by the instructors. There was no proper identification of the students by the guard and that there was no close supervision by the instructors. We do not wish to dwell upon the competency of those instructors; nor we are in a position to say that they were untrained. We do not have any material to show as to what are the minimum qualifications required for the instructors. But the incident which took place clearly spells negligence and want of adequate supervision on the part of the management. It is, therefore, a clear case of deficiency in service. The finding in the criminal case will not be relevant for our purpose in determining the negligence. 11.The argument of the learned Counsel for the management that the complainant is not the consumer, can be summararily dismissed when we look to the judgement of the National Commission in First Appeal No. 134/93, 141/93 and 149/93, decided on 27-9-95 between (Dole v. S.P. Mandale)1. F.A. No. 134, 191 149/93 dt. 27-9-95. The same facts were before the Commission and the Commission clearly observed that payment of fees for swimming is an indicator of the fact that swimmers are the consumers and that the authorities maintaining the swimming-pool are bound to render sufficient service viz. providing adequate safety and other requirements. We do not find that the management has even spoken about the life-guards being provided to the swimmers. We do not wish to dilate any more on that. But the above telling circumstances, make us firmly believe that the claim of the complainant is by no means false or not maintainable. 12.Now coming to the question of quantum of compensation, we are of the view that Sachin was the second son of the complainant. He would have started earning at the age of 23-24- years. He would presumably marry at the age of about 26-27 years. Naturally, for about 4 years, he would have substantially contributed his income to the welfare of the family. We would calculate this amount as Rs. 1000/- p.m. for about 48 months which comes to Rs. 48,000/. After his marriage, he would contribute low sum because he would be required to maintain his family and this we could put down at Rs. 500/- p.m. for the next 10 years. That amount would come to Rs. 60,000/-. By that time, his parents i.e. the complainant would be round about 55-60 years. 48,000/. After his marriage, he would contribute low sum because he would be required to maintain his family and this we could put down at Rs. 500/- p.m. for the next 10 years. That amount would come to Rs. 60,000/-. By that time, his parents i.e. the complainant would be round about 55-60 years. Even if, further period is extended, we feel that the amount would come to Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rs. One lakh twenty thousand) in all. We would pay - Rs. 20,000/- for the loss of life and Rs. 10,000/- by way of cost to the complainant. We are, therefore, inclined to grant compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rs. one lakh fifty thousand) to the complainant. The opponent Sanstha shall pay this amount to the complainant within eight weeks; failing which this amount shall carry interest @ 15% till actual payment. The complaint is, thus, allowed. Complaint allowed.