Security guard told boy thrice not to enter pool | mumbai | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Dec 05, 2016-Monday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Security guard told boy thrice not to enter pool

mumbai Updated: Feb 10, 2012 01:11 IST
Puja Changoiwala
Puja Changoiwala
Hindustan Times
Highlight Story

Seven-year-old Vyom Sah had been warned three times by a security guard against entering the swimming pool without a guardian or an instructor, the Oshiwara police said.


Vyom, a Class 3 student from Baroda, drowned in a pool at Indra Darshan (phase 2) housing society on New Link Road, Andheri (West), on Saturday.

According to Pinkal Sah, Vyom’s father, the boy had been waiting to get into the pool as their society back home did not have one. “This was Vyom’s first visit to Mumbai and he was very excited. He found the city very adventurous and was keen to discover it further,” Sah told the police.

Dilip Rupawate, senior inspector, Oshiwara police station, said, “Vyom had seen other children playing in the pool on Saturday morning. He wanted to go in, but was not allowed as he did not have swimming trunks.”

Sah, who lost his only child in the accident, told the police that the boy did not inform the family before he left the house. “I last saw him at 11.30am when he was having breakfast. Because there was a wedding in the house, we did not notice when he slipped out of the apartment and went to the swimming pool,” he said.

According to the police, a security guard had noticed Vyom near the pool and had warned him against going in. “The security guard told him thrice that he couldn’t go in unless he was accompanied by a guardian or the pool instructor. But he was too young to know the repercussions. For him it was just another adventure. As soon as he was left alone, Vyom jumped into the pool,” said Rupawate.

The family performed the last rites of the boy on Saturday evening and left for their home on the same day.

A civic official said they only gave permission for a swimming pool on private property and it was the society’s duty to operate and maintain it.

The management of the society refused to comment on the issue.