Justice Mr. B. B. V AGY ANI, Hon'ble President: - The complainant retired from active life as Taxi Driver. O.P. No.1 is a Registered Trust known as "Brihanmumbai Krida Ani Lalitkala Pratisthan, Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika Shahaji Raje Bhosale Kreeda Sankul. O.P. No.2 is the Managing Trustee of the Trust. O.P. No.3 is the Member of the Committee In - charge of the Trust and O.P. No.4 is the Swimming instructor and Lifeguard appointed by the Trust. 2. The O.P. No.1 has its Swimming Pool at Andheri (West), Mumbai. O.Ps. enrolled the members for the purpose of swimming and also given admission to the public to the Swimming Pool as per Rules and Regulations of the Swimming Pool. 3. Francis. the son of the complainant was given admission for monthly course for beginner/swimmers. Francis paid Rs.400/ - to the O.P. towards entrance fee, instructions fee· and monthly fee for the monthly course commencing from 4th June, 1997. The said course actually started on 5th June, 1997. Francis was a beginner. On 20 - 6 - 1997 about 8.00 p.m. he reported his presence to O.P. No.4, who was on duty at the Swimming Pool. O.P. No.4 instructed Francis to swim in the Pool. However, O.P. No.4 without informing Francis left the place. Francis jumped into the water under impression that Lifeguard was nearby. Francis was swimming in swallow water. Francis all of a sudden started drowning and shouted for help. O.P. No.4 was too late to arrive at the Poolside. Meanwhile, Francis made struggle for his life in the water. Francis was taken out of water. The jaw of Francis was found locked. Yellowish froth was coming out from his mouth. Francis was taken to Cooper Hospital in a private car. In the Hospital Francis was declared dead. It is the case of the complainant that because of negligence on the part of Swimming Instructor and Lifeguard, Francis, a young boy of 24 years lost his life. Francis was only son of the complainant. The O.Ps. refused to admit their lapse and turned down the claim for compensation. Therefore the complainant filed Consumer Complaint for grant of compensation of Rs.l 0 Lakhs. 4. The O.Ps. filed common written statement and thereby resisted the complaint filed by the complainant. It is denied by the O.Ps. that there was any deficiency or negligence on their part. The O.Ps. refused to admit their lapse and turned down the claim for compensation. Therefore the complainant filed Consumer Complaint for grant of compensation of Rs.l 0 Lakhs. 4. The O.Ps. filed common written statement and thereby resisted the complaint filed by the complainant. It is denied by the O.Ps. that there was any deficiency or negligence on their part. It is contended by them that all possible help in time was given to Francis. According to them it was an unfortunate accident. The O.Ps. have also raised serious objection to the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer. The O.Ps. have also contended that the amount of compensation claimed by the complainant in the complaint is exorbitant. 5. Both the contesting parties have placed on record their respective evidence in the form of affidavits. We heard Learned Advocate Mr. H. H. Trivedi for the complainant and Learned Advocate Mrs. A. P. Purav for O.Ps. at length. We carefully perused the documentary evidence. 6. Whether complaint filed by the complainant is maintainable under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ? Before going to the issue of negligence, we propose to take up the issue with regard to maintainability of the complaint. It is contention of the O.Ps. that they had provided swimming facility to the public. This facility of swimming is not a service. Therefore, the complainant is not a consumer. The challenge to the maintainability of the complaint does not appeal to us. The Swimming Pool belongs to the Corporation. The Corporation has provided a swimming facility to the public at large. The swimming facility is not provided free of charge. In this particular case of Rs.400/ - were paid as fees by Francis. The payment of Rs.400/ - is the consideration for swimming facility provided by the O.Ps. The facility is one kind of service. Calling service by different name does not change the real position. In our view, Corporation has provided service for which deceased Francis had paid Rs.400/ - by way of consideration. Therefore the father of deceased Francis can file a consumer complaint for grant of compensation for defective service. We hold that the complaint filed by the complainant is a consumer complaint which falls within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Factual Matrix 7. Therefore the father of deceased Francis can file a consumer complaint for grant of compensation for defective service. We hold that the complaint filed by the complainant is a consumer complaint which falls within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Factual Matrix 7. Francis reported for swimming on 20 - 06 - 1997 for Batch commencing from 8.00 p.m. with his friend. Francis started taking lessons in swimming since 5 - 06 - 1997. The unfortunate incident occurred on 20 - 06 - 1997 at 8.40 p.m. Francis had not acquired the skill of swimming. He was just a beginner. He died while swimming. He was struggling in water. He was in shallow water. He shouted for help. It is a fact that O.P. No.4 and others dived into the water and took Francis out of water. Artificial respiration was given to him. It is not disputed that initially Francis was tried to be admitted in the Hospital by Ambulance, which could not start for 7 to 8 minutes. By private car, Francis was taken to Cooper Hospital at 9.05 p.m. However, before giving any treatment Francis was declared dead. 8. Salman Shaikh, Santosh Adsule, Santosh Parkar, Rajan Gaikwad, Dilip Karekar and O.P. No.4 Satish Nimbalkar are the Lifeguards, who were present at the time of mishap at the Swimming Pool. O.P. No.4 Satish Nimbalkar and Salman Shaikh dived into the water when Francis was struggling in the water and was taken out of the water. 9. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded statements of all the Lifeguards and friend of deceased Francis. Some of the Lifeguards have also filed their affidavits. It is revealed from the first disclosure of the Lifeguards to the Investigating Officer that Vinod Padwalkar, the Instructor under whom deceased Francis was taking training was on leave on 20 - 06 - 1997. In absence of Vinod Padwalkar. Francis and his friend were kept under O.P. No.4. O.P. No.4 asked the Francis to swim in the swallow water and left the place. It is admitted fact that O.P. No.4 was engaged in giving training to other trainees. Francis asked O.P. No.4 as to whether he could swim without life jacket. O.P. No.4 allowed him to swim into the water without life jacket. O.P. No.4 asked the Francis to swim in the swallow water and left the place. It is admitted fact that O.P. No.4 was engaged in giving training to other trainees. Francis asked O.P. No.4 as to whether he could swim without life jacket. O.P. No.4 allowed him to swim into the water without life jacket. From the statement of Shrijit Mayalipron, the friend of Francis, it is seen the Francis after completing one round shouted for help. He called O.P. No.4 for help. Thereafter, O.P. No.4 jumped into the water and took Francis out of the water. It appears that Francis after one round was exhausted and therefore he shouted for help. He was not kept under vigilant eye. Nobody assessed probable mishap. From the material placed on record. deficiency or negligence can be attributed to the O.Ps. 10. What is the minimum care required to be taken at the Swimming Pool? The Royal Life Saving Society (RLSS) is one of the largest water safety and life saving education organisations is the word, being active in 40 countries. The life saving movement began in England in 1891 as a means overcoming the considerable loss of life due to drowning. In 1924 the Society was granted a Royal Charter by King George V and a Supplemental Charter was granted by Queen Elizabeth II in 1959. In 1992, Life - guarding Manual was produced. It provided a valuable text for lifeguards. It is now recognised that those who are responsible for patrolling in a locality, be it beach pool, lake or river, require additional skills and knowledge over and above those required by the general lifesaver. It is Society's recommendation that all lifeguards, both professional and volunteer, should possess a current Lifeguard A ward specific to their work/patrol environment. The training to the lifeguards should include observation,. emergency action skills, the use of specialised equipment such as oxygen resuscitation equipment, and any other, which they are required to operate. Regular training will reveal the hazards and features relevant to specific environments and increase knowledge of operational procedures and the emergency action plan. While on duty, lifeguards must show skilled performance, physical capabilities, knowledge, understanding of potential emergencies, appropriate procedure and good judgment. As lifesavers, they are trained to react to various aquatic emergency situations. The lifeguard's primary responsibility is to take steps to prevent accident. While on duty, lifeguards must show skilled performance, physical capabilities, knowledge, understanding of potential emergencies, appropriate procedure and good judgment. As lifesavers, they are trained to react to various aquatic emergency situations. The lifeguard's primary responsibility is to take steps to prevent accident. The lifeguard should be dressed in appropriate clothing so as to be easily recognizable to the public and instantly ready for action. The lifeguard should wear a bathing costume with shorts or skills, closed toe footwear for protection and to permit safe mobility poolside and a lifeguard shirt. The shirt be properly lebelled with word "LIFEGUARD", ensuring easy identification. The lifeguard must know how aquatic accidents occur – when, where, why and to whom - so that they have the necessary understanding to prevent accidents. These are the common reasons why Swimming Pool accident occurs : (1) Improperly designed or constructed pool; (2) Failure to secure pool from small children; (3) Failure to maintain pool in safe condition; (4) Lack of lifeguards; (5) Lack of safety equipments; (6) Inadequate warnings; (7) Absence of easy readable marking and; (8) Lack of safety covers. 11. Whether negligence is established? From examination of documents and evidence, we come to the conclusion that the sufficient number of Lifeguards were not present at the Poolside. Vi nod Padwalkar was on leave. No substitute Lifeguard was provided in his place. No specific Instructor was given to the trainees to whom Vinod Padwalkar was supposed to give training. Francis was a learner. He was allowed to swim in the water in absence of Instructor without life jacket. O.P. No.4 should not have allowed the Francis to swim in the poorwater without life jacket. No Lifeguard was present near the shallow water when Francis was in dire need of assistance. Nobody had visualised well in advance that Francis would require assistance. Francis a beginner was not kept under constant surveillance. When Francis, was taken out of water, considerable damage was already done to him in absence of timely help. Shreeji Mayalipron, the friend of deceased Francis was the first person who noticed that Francis was struggling and shouted for help. There is nothing placed on record to show as to whether really the Lifeguards had required training. Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances referred to above, we are of the clear opinion that there was negligence on the part of the O.Ps. There is nothing placed on record to show as to whether really the Lifeguards had required training. Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances referred to above, we are of the clear opinion that there was negligence on the part of the O.Ps. Because of negligence of O.Ps. Francis lost his life. Negligence of any degree amounts of deficiency in service. 12. Quantum of compensation This takes us to consider the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the complainant. A Certificate dated 24the November, 1997 issued by Employer of deceased Francis in placed on record to show that the monthly consolidated emoluments of Francis was to the tune of Rs.6,500/ - per month. Francis joined as 'Office Boy' in November, 1989 and was drawing Rs.600/ - per month then. During passage of time, he became 'Consulate co - ordinating Executive. The O.Ps. have raised serious objection for the quantum of monthly salary of deceased Francis. The affidavit of employer of Francis is not placed on record. Francis was graduate. We therefore take up the monthly salary of Francis to the tune of Rs.5,000/ - per month. At this rate, the yearly income of deceased Francis was Rs.60,000/ - . According to the Learned Advocate Mr. Trivedi the appropriate multiplier would be 18. On the other hand, it is tried to be argued that the 18 multiplier would be on the higher side. 13. In the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas and Ors., 1994 ACJ page - I, the Supreme Court has observed that multiplier method is the appropriate method for calculating just compensation. The choice of multiplier is determined by the two factors, namely, the rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy and the age of the deceased or of the claimant, whichever is higher, the ascertainment of the multiplicand is a more difficult exercise. In the said case the Supreme Court has held that the appropriate multiplier can be upto 16 years. 14. In the case of V.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Trilok Chandra & Ors., 1996 ACJ 831, the Supreme Court has held that the multiplier cannot exceed 18 years. 15. On the date of filing of the complaint, the complainant who happens to be father of deceased Francis was 62 years. The mother of Francis was 55 years of age. Vs. Trilok Chandra & Ors., 1996 ACJ 831, the Supreme Court has held that the multiplier cannot exceed 18 years. 15. On the date of filing of the complaint, the complainant who happens to be father of deceased Francis was 62 years. The mother of Francis was 55 years of age. Francis died at the age of 24 years. Taking into consideration the age of deceased Francis and the age of his parents, we propose to adopt multiplier of 10 years. Francis would have spent 1/3 amount of his monthly income on himself. The monthly loss of dependency therefore would come to Rs.3334/ - . Thus yearly loss of dependency would come to Rs.40,008/ - . Therefore the amount of loss of dependency would come to Rs.4,00,080/ - . In the result, we pass following order : - ORDER 1. The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed. 2. O.P. Nos.1 to 3 are hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.4.00.080/ - to the complainant together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of accident i.e. 20 - 61997 till the date of realisation. 3. O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 are further directed to pay Rs.3.000/ - to the complainant by way of cost of the proceedings. 4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. Complaint partly allowed.