THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. versus DEEPTI SINGH & ORS. on 15 March 2019

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA TOURISMDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.

v.

DEEPTI SINGH & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 6038 of 2015)

MARCH 15, 2019

[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD ANDHEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]

Consumer Protection – Deficiency of service – Firstcomplainant had booked accommodation at a hotel for a familyholiday – First complainant’s spouse sank into the swimming poolof the hotel and later died – FIR was registered – Also, a complaintwas filed before the National Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission (‘NCDRC’) – NCDRC held that there was a deficiencyof service on the part of the management of the hotel, primarily forthe reason that the lifeguard on duty was also assigned the task ofa Bartender and assessed the compensation in the amount ofRs.62,50,000/- – On appeal, held: A hotel which provides aswimming pool for its guests owes a duty of care – Allowing ordesignating a lifeguard to perform the duties of a Bartender was aclear deviation from the duty of care – The appellant could havereasonably foreseen that there could be potential harm caused bythe absence of a dedicated lifeguard – The imposition of such aduty upon the appellant can be considered to be just, fair andreasonable – In the instant case, there was a breach of duty of careby the appellant – Insofar as damages are concerned, taking intoaccount, the nature of the business, the prospects for future earnings,the loss of companionship for a spouse and of the guidance andsupport for the children, the assessment of compensation in theamount of Rs.62,50,000/- by the NCDRC was faultless.

The first complainant had booked accommodation at a Hotelfor a family holiday. Spouse of the first complainant entered theswimming pool with his brother. All of sudden, he becameunconscious and sank into the pool. It was alleged that aforeigner who was in the vicinity lifted him out of water. Later,spouse of the first complainant died. An FIR was registered and

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Athereafter a complaint was filed before the NCDRC. The NCDRCheld that there was a deficiency of service on the part of themanagement of the hotel. Appellant has filed this appeal againstthe order of the NCDRC.

Disposing of the appeals, the CourtB

HELD: 1. Existence of a duty of care

In the instant case, the deceased and the complainant wereguests in the hotel run by the appellant. Since the facility of aswimming pool was available for use by the guests of the hotel,there was a close and proximate relationship between theCmanagement involving the maintenance of safe conditions in thepool and guests of the hotel using the pool. A hotel which providesa swimming pool for its guests owes a duty of care. The duty ofcare arises from the fact that unless the pool is properlymaintained and supervised by trained personnel, it is likely toDbecome a potential source of hazard and danger. Every guestwho enters the pool may not have the same level of proficiencyas a swimmer. The management of the hotel can reasonablyforesee the consequence which may arise if the pool and itsfacilities are not properly maintained. The observance of safetyrequires good physical facilities but in addition, human supervisionEover those who use the pool. Allowing or designating a lifeguardto perform the duties of a Bartender is a clear deviation from theduty of care. Mixing drinks does not augur well in preservingthe safety of swimmers. The appellant could have reasonablyforeseen that there could be potential harm caused by the absenceFof a dedicated lifeguard. The imposition of such a duty upon theappellant can be considered to be just, fair and reasonable. Thefailure to satisfy this duty of care would amount to a deficiency ofservice on the part of the hotel management. [Para 15][234-B-E]

G2. Breach of duty

G2. Breach of duty

In the present case, it is an admitted position of the factthat the lifeguard on duty was also functioning as the Bartender,and that a foreigner was the first one to notice the deceaseddrowning in the swimming pool. The breach of the duty of carelies in the fact that while the hotel had made the facility of aH

swimming pool available for its guests, it ought to have assigneda lifeguard who would perform his duties only in that capacity.The reasoning of the NCDRC to the effect that a lifeguard onduty should not be distracted by virtue of being assigned otherduties, is eminently fair and proper. Hence, there is no difficultyin holding that there was a breach of the duty of care owed by theappellant. [Paras 19, 20] [236-E-F, G]

3. Consequential Damages

That leaves this Court with the question of damages.Appeals have been filed against the decision both by the KTDCas well as by the original complainants. The deceased was 35years old. He was a partner in a firm engaged in the business oftrading in consumer goods and office automation along with twoother persons. The income tax return for the assessment year2005-06 indicated that he had a gross income of Rs.1,91,000/-The NCDRC has justifiably borne in mind the fact that thedeceased had ample future prospects. Material was producedon the record to indicate that the deceased was carrying onbusiness and also had agricultural income. The young childrenhave been deprived of the support and affection of their father.Their mother has lost the companionship of a spouse. The natureof the loss is incapable of being fully compensated in monetaryterms. Therefore, taking into account the social status of theparties, the income of the deceased, the nature of the business,the prospects for future earnings, the loss of companionship fora spouse and of the guidance and support for the children, theassessment of compensation in the amount of Rs.62,50,000/- bythe NCDRC cannot be faulted. [Paras 21 and 24][237-A;238-D-G]

Poonam Verma v. Aswin Patel (1996) 4 SCC 332 :[1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 671;Rajkot MunicipalCorporation v. Manjulben Jaynatilal Nakum (1997) 9SCC 552 : [1997] 1 SCR 304;India TourismDevelopment Corporation Limited v. Miss Susan LeighBeer 2014 SCC Online Del 3376 – relied on.

Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman (1990) 2 AC 605;BNM on her own and on behalf of Others v. National

AB

CD

EF

G

H

AUniversity of Singapore [2014] 2 SLR 258 ;Reevs v.Commissioner of Police (2000) 1 A.C. 360 –referredto.

Winfield & Jolowicz on Torts 19th Edition, 2014 pg144 – referred to.

B

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6038 of

C2015.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.04.2015 of the NationalConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in ConsumerComplaint No.89 of 2006

With

D

Civil Appeal No.8000 of 2016.

U.R. Lalit, Sr. Adv., Gopal Sankar Narayan, E.M.S. Anam,M.S. Vishnu Sankar, Ms. Ashivarya Kane, Ms. Gayatri Verma, SantoshKumar, Madhurendra Sharma, V. Sushant Gupta, Mushtaq Ahmad, Advs.Efor the Appellant.

U.R. Lalit, Sr. Adv., Ranbir Singh Yadav, Puran Mal Saini,Ms. Anzu K. Varkey, Pati Raj Yadav, E.M.S. Anam, Advs. for theRespondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F

DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.

1. The Appeals are admitted.

2. These appeals arise from the judgment of the NationalConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission[1] dated 28 April 2015.

G

3. A consumer complaint in regard to an alleged deficiency ofservice of the Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.[2] wasinstituted by Ms Deepti Singh for and on behalf of herself and her twominor children. The complainants had booked accommodation at Hotel 1 “National Commission”H2 “KTDC”

Samudra at Kovalam for a family holiday. On 21 March 2006 between6.30 and 7 p.m., Satyendra Pratap Singh, the spouse of the firstcomplainant and father of the two minor children entered the swimmingpool of the hotel with his brother. Other guests of the hotel were presentin the pool at that time. All of a sudden, Satyendra Pratap Singh becameunconscious and sank into the pool. It was alleged by the complainantsthat on witnessing the incident, a foreigner who was in the vicinity in thepool lifted him out of the water. The incident is not in dispute. However,according to KTDC, the lifeguard on duty also jumped into the swimmingpool. The victim was pulled out of the water and was taken to hospital.He died at 9.30 p.m. on the same day.

4 A First Information Report[3] was lodged at about 2 p.m. on 22March 2006 at the Medical College Police Station. Eventually, a complaintwas filed before the NCDRC. The NCDRC has held that there was adeficiency of service on the part of the management of the hotel, primarilyfor the reason that the lifeguard on duty had also been assigned the taskof being a Bartender. The NCDRC placed reliance on safety guidelinesfor water sports issued by the National Institute of Water Sports, Ministryof Tourism, Government of India. Insofar as they are material and asextracted in the impugned order of the NCDRC, the instructions read asfollows:

“Pool Lifeguard:

“Scope: The regulations contained below are applicablefor lifeguarding at swimming pool, Water Park and Lake front.The stipulations are being framed to ensure that the people/participants enjoy swimming/water borne activities and are freefrom fear of safety and security; Life Guarding Instructions:

Duties should not exceed 4 hours at a time.

Area under observation should not exceed 50 meters. More than,one observation post must be provided for longer/bigger swimmingpools or water parks.

Life guard on active duty should not be distracted while onduty. No other job shall be assigned to while they are onpool duty.

3 “FIR”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ALifeguard should be familiar with standard communication signals.”(Emphasis supplied)

The NCDRC held that assigning a lifeguard with an additionalduty of attending to the Bar was liable to distract his attention,since he may not be able to keep a close watch on the guestsBswimming in the pool. Moreover, while attending to his duties asa Bartender, the employee would necessarily have to leave thepool, even for a short period of time, to attend to guests outsidethe pool.

5. Mr Gopal Sankarnarayanan, learned Counsel appearing onCbehalf of the appellant, highlighted two facets: Firstly, he urged thatappellant disputes the factual position that the deceased was lifted out ofthe water by another guest who was using the pool. According to theappellant, the lifeguard on duty also assisted in doing this exercise.Secondly, it is inexplicable as to how a 35 year old able-bodied individualsuddenly drowned in the pool. On these grounds, learned CounselDsubmitted that the order of the NCDRC needs to be revisited in thepresent appeal.

6. On the other hand, Mr U R Lalit, learned Senior Counselappearing on behalf of the respondents submitted :

E(i) The finding of fact by the NCDRC that there was a breach ofthe duty of care is based on cogent material on the record and does notwarrant interference in appeal; and

(ii) As a matter of fact, the complainants before the NCDRC areentitled to an enhancement of the compensation awarded in theirFappeal. The deceased was a businessman with agricultural income, inaddition. There were excellent future prospects for the enhancement ofhis income. His family has sustained a serious tragedy consequent onhis death. Hence, the compensation which has been awarded should beenhanced.

7. It is an admitted position that initially, it was a guest who noticedGthat the deceased was drowning. There is a dispute on whether thedeceased was pulled out of the pool only by the foreigner, as thecomplainants contend, or both by the foreigner and the life guard, aswas contended by the Management. The issue before the court is whetherthere was negligence on the part of the appellant arising from a breachHof the duty of care it owed the deceased.

MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA TOURISM DEV. CORPN. LTD. v.DEEPTI SINGH [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.].

8. In Poonam Verma v Aswin Patel[4], a two judge Bench of thisCourt elucidated on the elements of the tort of negligence. Justice SSaghir Ahmad held thus:

“14. Negligence as a tort is the breach of a duty caused by omissionto do something which a reasonable man would do, or doingsomething which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.”

The Court listed the following elements which constitute‘negligence’:

“15. … (1) a legal duty to exercise due care;

(2) breach of the duty; and

(3) consequential damages.”

9. In Rajkot Municipal Corporation v Manjulben JayantilalNakum[5] (“Rajkot Municipal Corporation”), a two judge bench ofthis Court characterized the tort of negligence as “careless conduct incommission or omission of an act”. Justice Ramaswamy opined thus:

“12... The elements of tort of negligence consist in — (a) duty ofcare; (b) duty is owed to the plaintiff; (c) the duty has beencarelessly breached. Negligence does not entail liability unlessthe law exacts a duty in the given circumstances to observe care.Duty is an obligation recognised by law to avoid conduct fraughtwith unreasonable risk of damage to others. The question whetherduty exists in a particular situation involves determination of law.Negligence would in such acts and omissions involve anunreasonable risk of harm to others. The breach of duty causesdamage and how much is the damage should be comprehendedby the defendant. Remoteness is relevant and compensation onproof thereof requires consideration. The element of carelessnessin the breach of the duty and those duties towards the plaintiff areimportant components in the tort of negligence. Negligence wouldmean careless conduct in commission or omission of an actconnoting duty, breach and the damage thereby suffered by theperson to whom the plaintiff owes. Duty of care is, therefore,crucial to understand the nature and scope of the tort ofnegligence.”

4 (1996) 4 SCC 332

5 (1997) 9 SCC 552

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A10. The ingredients of the tort of negligence are: (i) existence ofa duty of care; (ii) a breach of the duty through action or omission; and(iii) damages arising as a consequence of the breach.

11. We shall now determine if these elements have been satisfiedin the present case.

B

12 (i)Existence of a duty of care

In Caparo Industries plc v Dickman[6], the House of Lordsobserved that three ingredients are necessary for the existence of aduty of care: (i) foreseeability of the damage; (ii) proximity of relationshipbetween the parties; and (iii) whether it is ‘just, fair and reasonable’ thatCthe law should impose a duty of care. Lord Bridge stated thus:

“What emerges is that, in addition to the foreseeability of damage,necessary ingredients in any situation giving rise to a duty of careare that there should exist between the party owing the duty andthe party to whom it is owed a relationship characterised by theDlaw as one of “proximity” or “neighbourhood” and that the situationshould be one in which the court considers it fair, just andreasonable that the law should impose a duty of a given scopeupon the one party for the benefit of the other.”

13. In Rajkot Municipal Corporation(supra), this Court, reliedEon Michael. A. Jonas’s treatise[7] on the Law of Torts and observed thus:

“33… as a tort, negligence consists of a legal duty to take careand breach of that duty by the defendant causes damage to theplaintiff. Duty determines whether the type of loss suffered bythe plaintiff in the particular way in which it occurred can ever beFactionable. Breach of duty is concerned with the standard of carethat ought to have been adopted in the circumstances, and whetherthe defendant’s conduct fell below that standard, i.e., whether hewas careless. The division of negligence into duty, breach andconsequent damage is convenient for the purpose of expositionbut it can be confusing because the issues will often overlap. HeGhas elaborated the general principles, viz., the neighbourhoodprinciple as laid down in Donoghue v. Stevenson and has statedat p. 27 that the result would seem to be that factors which formerlymight have been considered at the second stage of Lord 6[1990] 2 AC 605H74th Edition, (1995).

Wilberforce’s test, policy considerations which ought to “negative,or to reduce or to limit the scope of the duty”, should be taken intoaccount at an earlier point when deciding whether a relationshipof proximity between plaintiff and defendant exists. The secondstage of the test will apply only rarely, i.e., in a limited category ofcases where, notwithstanding that a case of negligence is madeout on the proximity basis, public policy requires that there shouldbe no liability. This new approach represents a shift ofemphasis rather than a new substantive test for theexistence of a duty of care. In future, rather than startingfrom a prima facie assumption that where a defendant’scarelessness causes foreseeable damage, a duty of care willexist, subject to policy considerations which may negativesuch a duty. The courts will determine the duty issue on acase-by-case basis, looking in particular at the nature ofthe relationship between parties to determine whether itis sufficiently proximate. That question is of an intenselypragmatic character, well suited for gradual developmentbut requiring most careful analysis. The followingrequirements must be satisfied before a duty of care is heldto exist:

(i) Foreseeability of the damage;

(ii) a sufficiently proximate relationship between the par-ties; and

(iii) even where (i) and (ii) are satisfied it must be just andreasonable to impose such a duty.”

(Emphasis supplied)

14. In India Tourism Development Corporation Limited vMiss Susan Leigh Beer[8], the respondent had slipped into a swimmingpool maintained by the appellant on account of the growth of algae onthe tiles of the swimming pool and sustained serious injuries. A DivisionBench of the Delhi High Court held that the appellant did owe a duty ofcare to the respondent. It observed as follows:

“80…Guests at the swimming pool are closely and directly affectedby acts or omissions of those responsible for the maintenance of 8 2014 SCC OnLine Del 3376

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

234SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Aa pool; proximity of the respondent to appellant thus existed in thiscase. It is reasonably foreseeable that algale growth on the floorof the pool is likely to make the floor slippery, thus likely to injureguests at the pool.”

15. In the case before us, the deceased and the complainant wereBguests in the hotel run by the appellant. Since the facility of a swimmingpool was available for use by the guests of the hotel, there was a closeand proximate relationship between the management involving themaintenance of safe conditions in the pool and guests of the hotel usingthe pool. A hotel which provides a swimming pool for its guests owes aduty of care. The duty of care arises from the fact that unless the pool isCproperly maintained and supervised by trained personnel, it is likely tobecome a potential source of hazard and danger. Every guest who entersthe pool may not have the same level of proficiency as a swimmer. Themanagement of the hotel can reasonably foresee the consequence whichmay arise if the pool and its facilities are not properly maintained. TheDobservance of safety requires good physical facilities but in addition,human supervision over those who use the pool. Allowing or designatinga life guard to perform the duties of a Bartender is a clear deviationfrom the duty of care. Mixing drinks does not augur well in preservingthe safety of swimmers. The appellant could have reasonably foreseenthat there could be potential harm caused by the absence of a dedicatedElifeguard. The imposition of such a duty upon the appellant can beconsidered to be just, fair and reasonable. The failure to satisfy this dutyof care would amount to a deficiency of service on the part of the hotelmanagement.

16 (ii) Breach of dutyF

In Winfield & Jolowicz on Torts[9], it has been observed that thefollowing conditions must be satisfied in order to prove a breach of theduty of care:

“The process of determining whether there has been a breach ofGduty involves three steps. These steps are often not neatlyseparated from each other, but it is essential to distinguish betweenthem if one is to understand properly this area of the law. First, itis necessary to ascertain the qualities of the reasonable person.

This is a question of law. Secondly, it must be asked how muchcare the reasonable person, given the qualities attributed to him,would have taken in the circumstances. The factors that arepermissible to take into account in this regard are prescribed bythe law, but the amount of care that the reasonable person wouldhave taken given those factors is a question of fact. Thirdly, itmust be determined whether the defendant took less care of theclaimant’s interests than the reasonable person would have taken.This is a question of fact. If the defendant took less care than thereasonable person would have taken, the defendant will be foundto have acted negligently, and the breach element of the tort ofnegligence will be satisfied.”

17. The safety norms for water sports prescribed by the NationalInstitute of Water Sports in the Ministry of Tourism of the Governmentof India cast an obligation upon the person or entity which provides aswimming pool in a hotel to appoint a lifeguard for the pool. The lifeguardshould not be given any other duties which would distract her from thework of a lifeguard. The role of a lifeguard has been succinctly set outby the National Commission thus:

“We need to keep in mind that the lifeguard is not an ordinaryswimmer. As per the norms laid down in the above referredregulation, he should be able to swim 100 meter in two minuteswithout resting, by way of crawl or breast stroke; he should beable to dive 08 inch deep and bring up a 5 Kg. weight to thepoolside/bank and he should be able to tread without moving thelegs for minimum 01 minute. The person who get appointed as alifeguard needs to possess a valid Lifesaving TechniqueCertification from the agencies like National Pool and Water Parksand Association and Safety Council. Such certification is grantedafter a two day Revalidation course to confirm that he meets thestipulated physical fitness and rescue standards.”

18. The Court of Appeal in Singapore, in BNM on her ownbehalf and on behalf of others v National University of Singapore[10],dealt with a case where the plaintiff’s husband drowned while swimmingin a pool owned by the National University of Singapore. The deceased A

B

C

D

EF

G

Agot into difficulties while swimming and his friend pulled him out beforethe lifeguards came to the rescue. The court held:

“48…A finding of negligence would depend on a number offactors in determining whether the difficulties of a swimmerin the water should have been apparent to the lifeguard onduty had he performed his duties diligently. The view ofthe lifeguard would be particularly material in thisassessment and that would in turn depend on a number offactors such as the size of the pool, the number of swimmers inthe pool and the available lighting, ie, whether it was day or night.Other relevant considerations would include whether there wereshouts for help by the swimmer in distress or other users of thepool, whether there was unusual splashing, whether the swimmerwas struggling or motionless in the pool or whether there wereother distractions which the lifeguard was required to attendto. There is no inflexible rule that the lifeguard is entitled to acertain amount of time to react before which an inference ofnegligence can be drawn. What is clear is that the longer it takesfor a lifeguard to detect a swimmer in distress in the water, themore likely an inference of negligence would be drawn. The lapseof time before reacting is only one factor for consideration…”

B

C

D

(Emphasis supplied)

E

19. In the present case, it is an admitted position of fact that thelifeguard on duty was also functioning as the Bartender, and that aforeigner was the first one to notice the deceased drowning in theswimming pool. The breach of the duty of care lies in the fact that whileFthe hotel had made the facility of a swimming pool available for its guests,it ought to have assigned a lifeguard who would perform his duties onlyin that capacity. The reasoning of the NCDRC to the effect that alifeguard on duty should not be distracted by virtue of being assignedother duties, is eminently fair and proper.

20. Moreover, the hotel did not adduce any evidence of the lifeguardin the present case who would have been the best person to make adisclosure of facts which were to his knowledge. The Managing Director,who appeared as a witness, was not present at the time of the incident.His version was hearsay evidence. Hence, we find no difficulty in holdingthat there was a breach of the duty of care owed by the appellant.

G

H

21 (iii) Consequential Damages

The third limb would require us to analyze whether the death ofthe deceased was caused by a breach of the duty and was not a remoteand unforeseeable damage. Mr Gopal Sankarnarayanan, learned Counselfor the appellant contended that the death of the deceased was not dueto the absence of the lifeguard and that a healthy 35-year-old man couldnot have drowned without any cause. Before we get to the particularfacts of the case, it is important to elucidate on the concept of causationin the law of torts. In Reeves v Commissioner of Police[11], LordHobhouse opined thus:

“My Lords, causation as discussed in the authorities has beencomplicated both by conflicting statements about whethercausation is a question of fact or of law or, even, “common sense”and by the use of metaphor and Latin terminology, e.g., causasine qua non, causa causans, novus actus and volenti, which inthemselves provide little enlightenment and are not consistentlyused.

At one level causation is purely a question of fact…Any disputedquestion of causation (factual or legal) will involve a number offactual events or conditions which satisfy the “but for” test. Aprocess of evaluation and selection has then to take place. It may,for example, be necessary to distinguish between what factuallyare necessary and sufficient causes…Thus certain causes willbe discarded as insignificant and one cause may be selected asthe cause. It is at this stage that legal concepts may enter in,either in a way that is analogous to the factual assessment…or, ina more specifically legal manner, in the attribution of responsibility(bearing in mind that responsibility may not be exclusive). In thelaw of tort it is the attribution of responsibility to humans that isthe relevant legal consideration.”

22. In the case before us, the post-mortem report indicates thefollowing:

“No injury was present on the body.

Brain was congested and oedematous. Air passages werecongested and contained blood stained fluid. Lungs were crepitant 11[2000] 1 A.C. 360

A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

Aand voluminous exuding copious amount of frothy blood stainedfluid on sectioning…

OPINION AS TO CAUSE OF DEATH: “Postmortemappearances are consistent with death due to Drowning.”(Emphasis supplied)

B

The death of the deceased was due to drowning. Significantly,there was no evidence of the presence of alcohol in the body of thedeceased. The death was due to drowning. Considering the delay in theresponse by the life guard who was preoccupied with bartending duties,the drowning of the deceased was a direct consequence of negligence.

C

23. On the above facts, we are of the view that the finding of adeficiency of service which was arrived at by the NCDRC was correctand was sustainable with reference to the material on the record. Thereis no element of perversity or any failure to take material circumstancesinto account in arriving at the decision.

D

24. That leaves this Court with the question of damages. Appealshave been filed against the decision both by the KTDC as well as by theoriginal complainants. The deceased was 35 years old. He was a partnerin a firm engaged in the business of trading in consumer goods andoffice automation along with two other persons. The income tax returnEfor the assessment year 2005-06 indicated that he had a gross income ofRs.1,91,000/- The NCDRC has justifiably borne in mind the fact thatthe deceased had ample future prospects. Material was produced onthe record to indicate that the deceased was carrying on business andalso had agricultural income. The young children have been deprived ofthe support and affection of their father. Their mother has lost theFcompanionship of a spouse. The nature of the loss is incapable of beingfully compensated in monetary terms. In our view, taking into accountthe social status of the parties, the income of the deceased, the nature ofthe business, the prospects for future earnings, the loss of companionshipfor a spouse and of the guidance and support for the children, theGassessment of compensation in the amount of Rs.62,50,000/- by theNCDRC cannot be faulted.

25. The NCDRC directed that the compensation should be paidwithin a period of six weeks from its decision, failing which it wouldcarry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum with effect from six H

MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA TOURISM DEV. CORPN. LTD. v.DEEPTI SINGH [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.].

weeks from the date of the judgment. We find no justification for theNCDRC to deprive the complainants of the benefit of interest fromthe date of filing of the complaint until the date of the decision. We,accordingly, modify the order of the NCDRC by directing that theamount which has been awarded by the NCDRC shall carry interest atthe rate of 9% p.m. from the date of the institution of the consumercomplaint till the date of payment. The amount which has been depositedin this Court in pursuance of the interim order passed in these proceedingsis permitted to be withdrawn by the respondents. The balance, in termsof the present direction, shall be paid over by the KTDC to thecomplainants within a period of four months from the date of this order.

26. Civil appeal No. 6038 of 2015 shall stand dismissed and CivilAppeal No. 8000 of 2016 shall stand allowed to the extent indicated inthe judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.

Ankit Gyan

Appeals disposed of.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H