The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad, has held Fantasy Park, Malampuzha, guilty of deficiency in service after a 10-year-old girl sustained grievous injuries while using a water ride at the amusement park. The Commission awarded the child’s father ₹2 lakh as compensation, besides litigation costs and reimbursement of additional medical expenses.
The Bench comprising President Vinay Menon V., Member Vidya A., and Member Krishnankutty N.K. passed the order.
The complaint was filed by the father of the deceased child, who was ten years old at the time of the incident. On February 2, 2024, the child had visited Fantasy Park on a school excursion with 54 other students. While using a ride known as the “Water Play Station”, she fell and suffered a fracture of the neck of the left femur. She was initially treated at Malabar Hospital, Palakkad, before being shifted to Valluvanad Hospital, Ottapalam, where she underwent surgery and remained hospitalised until February 6, 2024.
The theme park did not contest the proceedings despite service of notice and was proceeded ex parte. The insurer, United India Insurance Company, disputed both the occurrence of the accident during the ride and its liability under the policy.
The evidence before the Commission was a certificate issued by the theme park itself, acknowledging that the accident had occurred inside the park on the Water Play Station ride and recording that it had incurred ₹85,412 towards the child’s initial hospital expenses. The Commission observed that since the document had been admitted without objection, it constituted an admission by the park regarding the accident and the treatment expenses.
On the insurer’s liability, the Commission relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Citycorp Finance (India) Ltd. v. Snehasis Nanda (2025 KHC 6250) to hold that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the insurance company. Since the insurance policy was a contract of indemnity between the theme park and its insurer, the complainant could not maintain a consumer complaint directly against the insurer. The complaint against the insurance company was therefore held to be not maintainable. As regards the liability of the amusement park, the Commission concluded:
“
“We hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP1 in failing to provide ample security for the occupants in water play station.”
The Commission also noted the evidence of the treating doctor, who certified that the child had suffered 10% permanent disability. While the complainant had sought ₹7.5 lakh towards compensation and future treatment, the Commission found that only ₹2,446 in additional medical expenses had been proved over and above the amount already paid by the park.
Accordingly, the Commission directed Fantasy Park to pay:
● ₹2,446 towards proven medical expenses with 12% interest from August 24, 2024;
● ₹2 lakh as compensation;
● ₹25,000 towards litigation costs.
The Commission directed the park to comply with the order within 45 days, failing which the complainant would be entitled to a solatium of ₹1,000 per month from the date of the order until payment.
