School buses can’t throw caution to winds

Pushpa Girimaji

My neighbour’s child was dropped on the wrong side of the road by the school bus and before his mother could cross the road and reach him, the child ran across the road and was hit by a speeding two wheeler. Fortunately, the child survived, but missed an academic year because of a long stay in the hospital. I have been telling them to get compensation for the suffering undergone by the child, loss of an academic year, besides the agony suffered by them, as parents. My question is: Who should be held liable — the school or the transporter? And can they go to the consumer court or the motor accident tribunal?

I am not sure from your question whether the school had hired a transporter or whether the school had its own fleet. Whatever the case, the first respondent will be the school, which has the responsibility to ensure that the child is dropped at a safe, designated stop. If the school had hired a transporter, then you can name the transporter too. You can also include the driver in the list; the school or the transporter who hired him will be vicariously liable for his mistake.

To strengthen your case, I would suggest that you look at the School Vahan Policy in the state and any other relevant guidelines issued by the police, the high court or the child rights commission and see whether the school was complying with them or flouting them. That will also strengthen your case.

In the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), the parents can seek compensation for the injury caused to the child on account of the motor accident or the motorbike hitting the child. Through the consumer court, on the other hand, the parents can seek compensation from the service provider for the negligent service provided, resulting in an accident and injury to the child. So these are two different issues and the opposite parties too are different. I must mention that only recently, the apex consumer court chastised the consumer court at the state level for reducing the compensation in a similar case, on the ground that the parents can get compensation from the MACT.

Can you please quote this case for our benefit?

This case has its origin in the fatal injuries received by the four-year-old child of the complainants on February 17, 2012. As per the original complaint, for some reason, the school did not send the regular transport that day, but some other bus. And the driver dropped the child not at his doorstep as required, but on GT Road. When the child was on its way home, a tractor trailer hit the child, resulting in fatal injuries. The distraught parents filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur, which awarded Rs 7 lakh compensation. Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, before which the school appealed, however, reduced the amount to just Rs 1.5 lakh and said the complainants can get compensation through MACT. Accordingly, the parents filed a complaint before the MACT and was awarded Rs 3,50,000 along with 9 per cent interest. Meanwhile, the parents filed an appeal against the order of the State Commission.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission came down heavily on the lower court for reducing the compensation and asking the complainants to approach the MACT. The Commission said the lower consumer court had passed this order disregarding Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act. The Consumer Protection Act provides an alternate remedy to consumers aggrieved against the seller of goods or provider of services. By filing the complaint, the consumer had availed of this alternate remedy. Therefore, the state commission ought not to have reduced the compensation and forced the complaints to go to MACT, it said.

However, with regard to the revision petition filed by the opposite party, who was not present at the hearing, the apex consumer court remanded the case back to the State Commission. (Pratap Singh and another Vs Doon Valley Cambridge School, Ferozepur district, RP No 333 of 2016, order dated March 6, 2018)