Merry-go-rounds, giant wheels and similar swinging mechanisms are a common sight at melas and carnivals around the country and are a great attraction for children. All the more reason for those who organise such melas to ensure that such sources of entertainment also remain free of hazards and thereby safe.

Remember the tragedy at the Surajkund crafts mela in 2001? Four persons had been killed and about 14 seriously injured when the boat-shaped giant swing installed at the mela had overturned at a height of over 50 feet!

In the last week of February this year, the apex consumer court dealt with another such accident in another mela — at Karnal in 1996 — and held not just those who were providing the services of the swing, but also those who had organised the mela, liable for the consequences of negligent service.

This order should force all those who organise carnivals and provide such entertainment, to keep in mind the safety factor at all times.

In this particular case, the complainant, R.M. Kaushik, and his family had suffered serious injuries when the seat of the merry-go-round in which they were seated, had suddenly got detached while the merry-go-round was in operation, resulting in all of them being hurled to the ground at great speed.

In response to Kaushik’s complaint, the State Commission had held that the Haryana Institute of Fine Arts, which had organised the children’s mela and its director were as liable as the owner and the driver of the merry-go-round and the compensation amount of Rs 1 lakh had to be jointly and severally paid by them.

The institute and its director contested this before the apex consumer court, on the ground that (a) they did not charge any fee from those visiting the fair and (b) they had no supervisory authority over the running of the merry-go-round.

Dismissing both these contentions, the apex consumer court pointed out that the institute had collected Rs 10,000 from the swing owner for putting up the merry-go-round, who in turn collected a fee from consumers. This indirectly amounted to the institute charging fee from the consumers.

Further, they were in overall control of the Phulwari Children Bazar and it was their duty to have taken adequate care and precaution to ensure that untoward incidents did not occur. They failed in this duty to take due care (RP No. 384 of 1999, decided on February 25, 2008).