Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the hotel operator’s liability for a guest’s drowning where the lifeguard was also assigned bartending duties. Providing a pool created a duty of safe maintenance and dedicated trained supervision. The admitted dual assignment, delayed detection and response, and absence of testimony from the lifeguard supported breach and causation. Compensation of Rs 62.5 lakh was affirmed, with interest extended to run from institution of the complaint rather than only after the decision.
Issues
- Whether assigning the pool lifeguard bartending duties constituted negligent service causing the drowning.
- Whether the compensation and interest award required modification.
Held
- Negligence requires a duty of care, breach and consequential damage. A hotel providing a pool has a proximate relationship with its users and must reasonably foresee the danger from inadequate supervision; a duty of dedicated lifeguarding was fair and reasonable. (¶ 8–15)
- The admitted assignment of bartending duties distracted from active pool supervision. A guest first noticed the drowning, and the hotel failed to call the lifeguard, while its managing director lacked personal knowledge. The finding of breach was justified. (¶ 17–20)
- The post-mortem supported drowning, without evidence of alcohol. On these facts, the delayed response by the distracted lifeguard made the death a direct consequence of the negligence. (¶ 21–23)
- The deceased’s earnings, future prospects and the family’s losses supported compensation of Rs 62.5 lakh. Interest should cover the period from filing of the complaint to payment; the Court modified the award accordingly. (¶ 24–26)
Result
KTDC’s appeal dismissed; claimants’ appeal allowed to extend interest from institution of the complaint until payment. Rs 62.5 lakh compensation upheld; deposited sum withdrawable and balance payable within four months. No costs.