No licence or guards: Pool owner to pay Rs 52 lakh as boy drowns during ‘swimming lesson’

“There is negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party (swimming pool owner) for which he is liable for causing the death of a young person, the only son of the complainant (father), who had a long life and a bright future,” the July 15 order read.

The father, a daily wage labourer from a village in Nalgonda district, said that during the summer holidays, his minor son wanted to learn swimming and visited the pool with four friends. Believing that the facility was safe and properly licensed, he allowed his son to join, and the children allegedly joined the swimming pool after paying Rs 1,000 on April 15, 2024.

According to the father, when the children reached the pool, the management neither recorded their details nor explained the pool’s depth or any safety precautions. He further alleged that around 1.40 pm, he received a call from one of his son’s friends informing him that his son had drowned and was being taken to hospital.

By the time he and his wife reached the hospital, the boy had been declared dead. The man added that the hospital records, emergency admission form, and final death summary confirm that the cause of death was due to drowning, with no signs of resuscitative efforts made at the site.

The father also alleged that the pool was operating without a valid licence or permissions from the authorities and had no trained lifeguards, safety supervisors or even basic safety equipment such as life jackets and rescue devices. He later lodged a police complaint and sent a legal notice to the owner, who denied the allegations and refused to accept liability.

Pool owner’s defence

The swimming pool owner, represented by advocate V Murali, submitted that he was unaware that the complainant was a poor daily wager residing in a village and that he is the father of the deceased boy. The lawyer added that the father mentioned the boy’s age as 14 in his complaint, but his wife stated before the police that her son was aged 22.

It was further submitted that the complainant had not disclosed whether his son had knowledge of swimming or went along with his friends to learn swimming in the pool.

The owner also claimed that on the date of the incident, he was not the owner of the pool, nor did he run the pool. He had only leased out his open land to a person for a sports complex by establishing necessary sports equipment, he stated.

‘No licence, no lifeguards’

The commission found that the complainant’s son died in the swimming pool, which had no safety measures nor a life-saving kit, lifeguard or doctor for emergencies. It was also noted that there was no supervision by any expert trainers at the pool on the day of the incident.

“Due to the negligence and with no licence, the opposite party was running the unauthorised swimming pool at the risk of the lives of the swimmers,” it added.

Allowing the complaint, the commission said, “…the Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs 50,00,000/- to the Complainant towards compensation for the untimely and tragic death of his son…due to drowning in the swimming pool…to pay Rs 2,00,000/- towards mental agony and emotional suffering to the family members.” It also ordered the owner to pay Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs, and to refund the Rs 1,000 collected for the swimming classes.

Takeaway

The ruling underscores that operating a facility without the required licence and basic safety measures can amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, making the operator liable to compensate victims.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and union territories (Telangana: 1800-4250-0333) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

Don’t miss out on these stories:

Man bought Diwali sweets, got ‘stale’ soan papdi, wins Rs 15,000

Newborn’s umbilical cord blood discarded over ‘payment delay’, couple gets Rs 2 lakh

Dry cleaner held liable for ‘stained’ silk saree despite disclaimer, consumer wins Rs 6,000