Every boat tragedy in the country highlights the low priority that we give to safety and the low value that we attach to human life. Otherwise, how can we go on overloading the boats far in excess of their capacity, knowing fully well that the boats may capsize in such a situation? How can we provide boating facilities without the necessary safety infrastructure — life jackets and life buoys on the boat and life-guards and first-aid facilities on the shore? It is really unfortunate that every boat tragedy tells the same story of negligence.

Consider the boat tragedy that came up before the apex consumer court, where 23 precious lives were lost, many of them young children, only because the boat carried 38 passengers, ignoring the fact that its capacity was only 20. As usual, there were no life jackets or life buoys on the boat, or any life-guards around. If 15 passengers were saved, it’s thanks to swimmers among the visitors to the lake and later, the firemen who were called in.

Though the order of the apex consumer court was delivered on November 2, 2006, the tragedy took place at the Sursagar lake near Vadodara on August 11, 1993. The water resort was overcrowded with holiday makers, tickets were issued indiscriminately and the boat loaded far beyond its capacity. The inevitable happened. In its order delivered in 2002, the Gujarat State Commission held both the Vadodara Municipal Corporation, which controlled and managed the lake as well as Ripple Aqua Sports, which provided the boating facility on behalf of the Corporation, jointly and severally liable to pay the victims’ family compensation.

Both filed appeals before the apex consumer court against the order. After examining the case in detail, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission pointed out that providing recreational facilities to the people of the city was a discretionary function performed by the Corporation. However, that cast a statutory duty on the Corporation to maintain constant vigil, so as to ensure the safety of those who took the boat rides. The corporation failed in this duty.

The Commission also pointed out that the primary liability rested with Ripple Aqua Sports, which had, in contravention of its contract with the Corporation, taken 38 passengers on a boat that had a capacity to carry only 20. It therefore upheld the order of the State Commission holding the Corporation and the Aqua Sports jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

The order should act as a wake-up call to all those who provide boating service in the country.