HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT vs VAIBHAV SHARMA

-THIS appeal is by the opposite parties aggrieved by the order dated 3. 12. 05, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Guna, directing the Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Guna, to pay Rs. 2,50,000 and cost Rs. 1,000, for injury caused to the eye of the respondent while playing hockey.

THE brief facts are that Master Vaibhav Sharma, who has filed the complaint through his guardian, Shri Shailendra Kumar Sharma, was a student of Class X at the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Guna. A hockey team of the school, which included Master Vaibhav Sharma, went to the Central School, Bairagarh, for participating a hockey tournament, which was to take place from 22. 9. 2004 to 25. 9. 2001. On 22. 9. 2004 during a practice session, his left eye was inadvertently hit by a hockey stick, resulting in injury to the eye. The matter was immediately reported to the Principal, Central School, Bairagarh, who took Master Vaibhav to the Military Hospital. From there his case was referred to Sewa Sadan Eye Hospital, who in turn referred him to Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai. Meanwhile, the school at the request of Master Vaibhav''s father, paid Rs 50,000 as reimbursement of the expenses incurred in the medical treatment. The respondent has alleged that the teacher accompanying the team was new and was neither experienced nor qualified to accompany the team and there was deficiency on the part of the appellant school.

The District Forum allowed the complaint holding the appellant school deficient for not taking any insurance to cover any mishap.

WE have heard the respective contentions of the learned Counsel of the parties on the merits of the case, and perused the documents filed on record. It is an admitted fact that the injury to Master Vaibhav Sharma occurred while practising for a hockey tournament. It is also admitted that the injury was accidental. In any game of sports there is always a chance of injury to the player. The respondent''s argument that the teacher accompanying the team was not qualified is irrelevant, as no teacher however experienced can prevent such an accident, which occurs in the spur of a moment. It was a pure and simple accident, a slip-up that occurred in the heat of the game. It is not an incident that could be foreseen and avoided. We are unable to attribute any deficiency on the part of school management in such a case.

AS regards the insurance coverage for the students, no rule or order has been filed by the respondents to show that it is mandatory for the school to take insurance for students participating in games. During arguments, Mr. Deepesh Joshi, the learned Counsel for the respondent, contended that it was a case of strict liability. He placed reliance on the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K. T. Thomas and S. N. Phukan, JJ. , I (2002) SLT 149=i (2002) ACC 271 (SC)=air 2002 SC 551. However, the facts of the case are distinct inasmuch as it deals with the death of a person due to a live electric wire lying on the road. The Apex Court held "even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity". In the instant case, the game engaged in was neither hazardous nor was it an inherently dangerous activity. The doctrine of strict liability cannot apply in this case. The other decisions relied upon on behalf of the respondents deal with accidents which could have been easily averted had the teachers been more vigilant, and have no applicability to the facts of this case.

IN view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the Forum below is set aside. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.