Fatal Negligence: Yatri Hotel Held Liable for Fire Incident.


19 November 2024 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Consumer Protection Act >> Consumer Rights  

In a significant ruling of Yatri Hotel & Others Vs Arjun Kami & Another., upholding consumer rights, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has dismissed appeals filed by Yatri Hotel, affirming the State Commission's order holding the hotel liable for deficiency in service that led to the tragic death of a guest in a fire incident. The appeals, challenging the State Commission's order dated February 8, 2021, which had allowed complaints filed by the parents of the deceased, were heard together due to the identical facts and issues involved.

The case stems from a devastating fire that broke out at Yatri Hotel in Siliguri on the night of December 30-31, 2014. Mr. Devraj Kami, an assistant teacher and government employee, was staying at the hotel when the incident occurred, tragically losing his life. The complainants, Mr. Kami's parents, alleged gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the hotel, claiming that an electric malfunction reported prior to the fire was ignored by the hotel management. They further contended that the lack of functioning fire-fighting equipment exacerbated the situation, leading to the fatal outcome.


 

 

Yatri Hotel, represented by its learned counsel, argued that the fire was an accident and that the hotel possessed the necessary licenses and certificates from relevant government and statutory bodies, indicating no deficiency in service. The hotel also pointed out that many other guests survived the incident and questioned why the deceased and his friend were found at the bottom of a staircase, suggesting other potential contributing factors, including alleged alcohol consumption by the deceased. The hotel's counsel further argued that the State Commission's reliance on the police chargesheet to establish negligence was improper as a chargesheet only represents the investigating officer's opinion and not conclusive proof. They cited a Supreme Court judgment in support of this argument.

However, the NCDRC, after perusing the records and hearing both parties, firmly rejected the arguments put forth by Yatri Hotel. The Commission highlighted the undisputed facts that an electric disturbance occurred at the hotel around 10:30 PM on December 30, 2014, and was brought to the management's attention but remained unaddressed. Subsequently, a fire erupted at approximately 1:15 AM, resulting in the death of Mr. Kami and his friend due to severe burns, as confirmed by the post-mortem report.

The NCDRC specifically addressed the hotel's contention regarding the chargesheet. While acknowledging that a chargesheet is not conclusive proof in a criminal trial, the Commission stated that undisputed facts emanating from the document, particularly reports from other authorities mentioned within it, can be considered in matters before consumer forums that do not require the same strict standard of evidence as criminal law.

The Commission noted that the chargesheet explicitly mentioned reports from the Fire Safety Department (FSL Kolkata and West Bengal Fire & Emergency Services) and the local fire station, which indicated that while fire-fighting equipment was installed, it was not functioning at the time of the incident. Furthermore, a report from the Inspector in-charge of the local police station stated "No sufficient installation of fire extinguisher."

The NCDRC found it significant that despite an electric problem being reported hours before the fire, the hotel failed to take any action. It also emphasized the discrepancy between the hotel's claim of having up-to-date and functioning fire-fighting equipment based on certificates issued earlier in the year (January and March 2014) and the findings of the fire safety authorities at the time of the incident (end of December 2014). The hotel failed to provide any details regarding the number of fire extinguishers installed or evidence of efforts made to control the fire on the night of the tragedy.

The Commission deemed the arguments regarding where the bodies were found or alleged alcohol consumption as irrelevant in light of the clear cause of death being severe burn injuries. It also stated that the survival of other guests did not absolve the hotel of its responsibility for negligence.

In its order, the NCDRC concluded that the facts clearly indicated a deficiency in service and negligence on the part of Yatri Hotel. The Commission reiterated that ensuring the safety of guests in all legally required aspects is the fundamental responsibility of a hotel, and it cannot evade this liability by relying on outdated certificates.

Consequently, the NCDRC dismissed both appeals, upholding the State Commission's order directing Yatri Hotel to pay a total compensation of ?33,18,064 along with ?10,000 as litigation costs to the complainants. This judgment serves as a strong reminder to hotels and other service providers of their paramount duty to ensure the safety and well-being of their patrons and highlights the effectiveness of the Consumer Protection Act in providing redressal for negligence leading to tragic consequences.


Section 19, Consumer Protection Act - 1986  

Consumer Protection Act, 1986