AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Rajasuria, J.—This appeal is focussed at the instance of the defendants 2, 5 and 6 as against the judgment and decree dated 10-02-1994
passed by the learned Subordinate Judge. Krishnagiri in O.S. No. 58 of 1989, which was Filed by the plaintiffs, claiming compensation in a sum of
Rs. 70,000/- for the death of the minor boy-Sathyamurthi. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative
status and ranking before the trial Court.
The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus :
a) The parents of the deceased boy-Sathyamurthi filed the suit seeking the following relief:
To pass a decree and judgment awarding Rs. 70,000/- as compensation together with interest from the date of institution of the suit till realisation
to the plaintiffs payable by the defendants and for costs.
(extracted as such)
b) D2 filed the written statement, which was adopted by D5 and D6; D3 and D4 filed a separate written statement resisting the suit.
c) The trial Court framed the issues.
d) During trial, the second plaintiff-the mother of the deceased boy examined herself as P.W. 1 along with P.Ws. 2 to 6 and marked Exs. A1 to
A14, The third defendant examined herself as D.W. 1 along with D.Ws. 2 and 3 and marked Ex. B1.
e) Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit directing defendants 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 to pay jointly and severally the sum of Rs. 70,000/- as
compensation with 6% interest thereon from the date of suit till the date of realisation.
f) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the defendants 2, 5 and 6 have preferred this appeal on various grounds.
The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants/defendants 2, 5 and 6 placing reliance on the grounds of appeal would
pilot his arguments, inviting the attention of this Court to the various portions of the records a thumb nail sketch of the same would run thus :
(i) Absolutely there was no negligence on the part of the defendants in supplying the multi-vitamin tablets to the school children and their acts were
actuated and galvanised, propelled and impelled by bona fides, which cannot be dubbed or labelled as mala fides by the plaintiffs.
(ii) The medical records would unambiguously and unequivocally, display and demonstrate that the death of the boy was not due to any poison
also. Simply because the said boy-Sathiyamurthi, the son of the plaintiffs died, the authorities cannot be mulcted with any liability. However, the
compensation awarded by the lower Court is on the higher side.
Accordingly, he would pray for the dismissal of the suit.
The points for consideration are as under:
Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the finding of the trial Court that the death of the boy occurred due to excessive consumption of
multi-vitamin tablets supplied by the Health Officer and that too, without any cautious and instructions, whatsoever?
Whether there was any negligence on the part of the defendants, which resulted in the death of the boy-Sathiyamurthi?
Whether the compensation awarded by the trial Court is on the higher side?
Whether there is any error in the judgment and decree of the trial Court?
The indubitable and indisputable or at least the undeniable facts would run thus:
The deceased-Sathiyamurthi a boy of 10 years old happened to be the biological son of the plaintiffs 1 and 2. The first plaintiff died during the
pendency of the suit and P2-the mother alone is proceeding with the matter. The evidence on record would display and demonstrate that multi-
vitamin tablets were supplied to the students at the concerned time in the school itself. According to the defendants and their witnesses, while
distributing the tablets in a bunch, the students were cautioned that one tablet should be taken per day. However, the evidence on the side of the
plaintiffs would reveal that no such instructions were given and the boy unwittingly consumed nearly 30 tablets in one swing and fainted in the
school itself. Whereupon, he was taken to a private Doctor, who gave first aid. On the next day, the boy attended the school but not in healthy
condition and once again he swooned in the school itself. Whereupon, he was admitted in the hospital; but he died on 06-07-1988.
At this juncture, I would like to refer to the medical records :
Ex. A13 - The Post-mortem report coupled with Ex. A14 the Forensic Science Laboratory report would evince and evidence that the boy died
due to pneumonia and septicemia. No steps have been taken to collect the stomach wash or any other fluid from the boy at the time of giving initial
treatment to him. Only after his death, post-mortem was conducted, so to say, the consumption of tablets took place as early as on 29-06-1988;
whereas the boy died on 06-07-1988. After the boy''s death viscera was collected and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, that is the elephant in
the room. At that time, the analysis of viscera would not in any way reveal the presence of any multi-vitamin tablets or any chemical substances in
it. Simply because, there was no chemical substance identified in the viscera, the trial Court cannot be expected to jump to the conclusion that the
case of the plaintiff was false.
The core question would arise as to what prevented the parents of the plaintiff to be more vigilant.
The learned Counsel for the plaintiff would detail and delineate, express and expatiate that the parents of the boy were illiterates, hailed from a
remote village in Krishnagiri District and adequate medical facilities were not available in that area. Dr. Ramanathan P.W. 3 a private doctor
treated the boy by way of giving first aid. Over and above that one cannot expect the parents to be more vigilant. The authorities concerned should
have taken appropriate step to save the life of the boy. But, they did not do so.
spectatur
I recollect and call-up the following maxim:
In jure non remote cause, sed proxima, spectaur - In law the proximate and not the remote, cause is regarded.
Here the consumption of the multi-vitamin tablets in a bunch was the direct cause for the death of the boy and the Court cannot detach that cause
from the consequences, viz. the death. The concept causa casans also could be ushered in. The consumption of bunch of tablets at one and the
same time by the boy that resulted in his death. The tablets were given to the students without taking protection to see that the students do not
consume them at once.
The learned Counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the responsibility was on the Government Department concerned to see that such
situations were properly handled and such tablets should not have been given to students at random and they should have been handed over to the
parents for being given to the students appropriately adhering to proper dose.
I would like to endorse his suggestions and accordingly that should be followed in future by all concerned.
The trial Court considering the pro et contra, appropriately dealt with the matter and held that the defendants were squarely liable to pay the
damages. While holding so, I am of the view that the trial Court was not justified in passing a decree as against Raja Rajeshwari, the health worker,
who gave the tablets. In fact, she was only the low level official and she acted only as per the instructions of her superior officers and she cannot of
her own accord go to the respective parents'' houses and distribute the tablets. As such, she cannot be made liable to pay damages.
Similarly, D4-the Headmaster of the school also for the same reasons cannot be made liable as he was duty bound to obey the Government
directions. The concept respondent superior - (Law Latin - ""Let the superior make answer"") should not be thrown to winds while deciding cases
of this nature.
Regarding the quantum of compensation is concerned. I am of the view that the trial Court was moderate in assessing the compensation. The
trial Court felt that the award of Rs. 60,000/- in one lump sum would meet the ends of justice. In addition to that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was
awarded towards loss of love and affection, which also cannot be found fault with. Even if the sub-heads are re-arranged, adhering to Motor
Vehicles Act, the ultimate result would be the same at the relevant time. The deceased was 10 years old at the time of his death, but for his
untimely death, he would have certainly completed his schooling and at least found placement as a clerk and earned and supported his parents. The
II Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 would contemplate that the compensation awarded in death cases should not be less than
Rs. 50,000/- in addition to awarding other usual sums under other subheads and a cue could be taken from it even though verbatim the said
provision of law is not applicable to this case.
As such, I am of the considered view that no interference with the quantum of the compensation awarded is also warranted.
Accordingly,
(i) Point No. 1 is answered to the effect that there is no perversity or illegality in the finding of the trial Court that the death occurred due to
excessive consumption of multi-vitamin tablets supplied by the Health Officer.
(ii) Point No. 2 is answered to the effect that the compensation awarded by the trial Court is just and proper.
(iii) Point No. 3 is answered to the effect that there is no error in the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court, however exonerating D1 and D4 from paying the
compensation amount. There shall be no order as to costs.