AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice K.N. Basha
The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-with
interest to the petitioner towards compensation for the loss of right hand of the petitioner''s daughter, mental agony and loss of good marriage
opportunity due to the accident occurred in the fifth respondent school due to negligence on the part of the respondents. This is a pathetic case
where the petitioner''s daughter, a minor girl by name Muthulakshmi, has lost her right hand due to amputation on the ground of sustaining injuries
while she was playing in a Rattinam outside the school campus and due to the alleged carelessness of the management of the fifth respondent
school and the respondents, namely, Government officials.
The factual scenario of the case is that the petitioner''s daughter Muthulakshmi was studying 5th Standard in the fifth respondent school. She is
good looking and healthy girl and she hails from downtrodden and scheduled community. She was taking her lunch, as per the Noon Meal Scheme
introduced by the Government, in the school premises. On the fateful day i.e., on 22.12.2003, during lunch time while the petitioner''s daughter and
other students were waiting for noon meal, some of the school children went outside the school to play Rattinam and the petitioner''s daughter also
went along with them. At that time, neither the school teachers nor the noon meal organizers or any assistants have taken care of the children
including the petitioner''s daughter by preventing them from going outside the school campus during lunch hours and without even taking noon meal
and as a result, the petitioner''s daughter Muthulakshmi sustained grievous injuries on her right hand at 1.15. p.m on 22.12.2003 while playing
Rattinam.
The petitioner came to know about the occurrence as informed by the school authorities. The injured girl was taken to the Government Hospital,
Mayiladuthurai and thereafter, referred to the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital. However, inspite of the treatment given in the Thanjavur
Medical College Hospital, the Doctors decided to amputate the right hand of the petitioner''s daughter.
In view of such an incident, an F.I.R was registered on the same day i.e., 22.12.2003 in Crime No. 768/2003. It is mentioned in the F.I.R that
the occurrence said to have taken place at 01.15 p.m on 22.12.2003. The said F.I.R was registered on the basis of the complaint preferred by the
paternal uncle of the girl Muthulakshmi.
The petitioner gave several representations to the respondents seeking for the relief of compensation. Lastly, a representation was given on
09.09.2005. The fourth respondent, namely, District Educational Officer, Nagapattinam, on receipt of the said representation, has sent a
communication to the District Primary Educational Officer, Napattinam and directed the petitioner to contact the said Officer as per the
communication dated 21.11.2005. Thereafter, there was no further response from the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner has been constrained
to approach this Court with the present writ petition with the above said prayer.
Mr. M.Pari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that only due to the negligence on the part of the respondents,
the petitioner''s daughter suffered serious injuries on her right hand and ultimately, resulted in amputating the right hand itself. It is contended that
even as per the admitted version of the respondents, the occurrence said to have taken place during school hours and that too, at the time of lunch
hours for taking noon meal organized by the noon meal organizers of the Government. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that it is
the paramount duty of the noon meal organizers and other staffs to take care of the children during lunch hours and upto the closing of the school
hours, but, as far as the instant case is concerned, the school authorities as well as the noon meal organizers and other staffs members committed
deliberate negligence in not taking care of the children studying in the fifth respondent school. It is further contended that if the school authorities as
well as the noon meal organizers have taken care of the children, they could not have allowed the minor girl of the petitioner to go out of the school
premises.
The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the occurrence, admittedly, taken place very nearer to the school premises and as such,
the respondents cannot escape from their liability to compensate adequately in view of the loss of right hand, which caused mental agony and
torture not only to the minor girl Muthulakshmi but also to the entire family members and her future prospects is also very much affected including
marriage opportunity. It is contended that inspite of giving several representations, the respondents have not considered the representations of the
petitioner and no action taken including the last representation submitted by the petitioner dated 09.09.2005. It is further contended that the
petitioner can very well seek the remedy by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court in view of the principles laid down by the Hon''ble Apex
Court and this Court also awarded compensation to the affected persons in several matters, on the ground of negligence on the part of the
authorities concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, would place reliance on the following decisions:
(i) M.S. Grewal and Another Vs. Deep Chand Sood and Others,
(ii)Matsa Gandhi,D. v. Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board reported in 2000 (III) CTC 24
Per contra, Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader contended that the official respondents have not committed any negligence
and they have taken care of the children of the fifth respondent school including the minor girl Muthulakshmi, who has suffered injuries in this
matter. It is contended that the noon meal organizers and the assistants in the fifth respondent school have properly supervised the students and the
school premises are also fenced and there is a gate at the entrance. It is further contended that the accident resulting in the amputation of the right
hand of the petitioner''s minor daughter took place outside the school premises while playing Rattinam run by a private person and the said
Rattinam was fixed 200 meters away from the school premises and as such, the official respondents as well as the school authorities cannot be held
liable for any negligence on their part. It is also contended that it is the duty of the watchman of the school to prevent the children from going out of
the school premises and as such, noon meal organizers or assistants cannot be held liable. It is submitted that the petitioner''s daughter went on her
own accord to play Rattinam and suffered injuries.
Mr. A.Muthukumar, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent school management contended that there is no fault on the part of the
management of the school. It is contended that the students of the fifth respondent are properly supervised and controlled by the teachers and the
noon meal organizers. It is submitted that the occurrence itself said to have taken place outside the school premises, while the petitioner''s daughter
was playing Rattinam which was run by a private person and as such, the school management cannot be held liable for any negligence. The learned
counsel for the fifth respondent further submitted that the fifth respondent school is having properly fenced compound and gate and with all
infrastructure facilities to safeguard the students. It is contended that the petitioner''s daughter went on her own accord outside the school premises
and played in the Rattinam and suffered injuries during lunch interval between 12.45 to 2.00 p.m and as such, the school management is not at all
responsible in any manner for the accident that occurred outside the school premises. It is also submitted that the school has taken care of the
minor girl by rendering medical assistance for taking treatment. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent lastly submitted that the quantum of
compensation has to be fixed by the Civil Court and before awarding compensation, the said exercise should not be taken in a writ petition and it is
for the petitioner to approach only the Civil Court.
I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and perused the entire materials available
on record.
At the outset it is to be stated that this is a very unfortunate and pathetic case wherein a minor girl has suffered amputation of her right hand due
to the accident occurred nearer to the school premises during lunch interval while she was playing in the Rattinam, kept and displayed outside the
school premises.
The fact remains that the petitioner''s daughter was studying 5th standard in the fifth respondent school and the fateful incident said to have
taken place on 22.12.2003 during lunch interval and the petitioner''s daughter was one of the student enrolled for the noon meal scheme. It is
pertinent to note that the occurrence said to have taken place on 22.12.2003 at 12.40 p.m as per the counter filed by the fourth
respondent/District Elementary Educational Officer and as such, it is crystal clear that the occurrence said to have taken place only during the
course of lunch interval and even the lunch time was not over. It is further seen that the fifth respondent school also stated in its counter that the
occurrence said to have taken place at 01.15 p.m after taking noon meal in the fifth respondent school. It is not clear whether the petitioner''s
daughter has taken her noon meal or even before taking the noon meal, she has met with the unfortunate accident, but it is stated by the petitioner
in the affidavit that his minor girl left for playing Rattinam along with other students even before taking lunch at the noon meal centre, as they were
waiting for taking lunch. Be that as it may, the undisputed fact remains, as already pointed out, that the occurrence said to have taken place within
the lunch hours as it is very much evident from the F.I.R produced before this Court and the perusal of the F.I.R makes it abundantly clear that the
occurrence said to have taken place at 1.15 p.m on 22.12.2003.
The F.I.R was registered on the same day i.e., on 22.12.2003 on the basis of the complaint preferred by the paternal uncle of the minor girl of
the petitioner. The fact of amputation of the right hand inspite of the treatment given at Thanjavore Medical College Hospital is also not disputed by
the respondents herein, namely, official respondents and the fifth respondent/school management and the said factor is very much evident in view of
the copy of the discharge summary produced by the petitioner herein before this Court. Considering the above said factual scenario and the
admitted factors as already pointed out by this Court, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the unfortunate incident said to have taken place,
resulting in serious injuries to the right hand of the petitioner''s minor daughter and ultimately resulting in the amputation of the right hand itself, well
within the school hours and that too, during lunch hours.
It is needless to state that it is the utmost and paramount duty of the school authorities to take care of the children during the school hours. As
far as the official respondents are concerned, it is not disputed by the official respondents that the school is having a noon meal centre and the noon
meal organizers apart from assistants were also present on the fateful date of occurrence in the school premises. Though it is stated in the counter
by the fourth respondent, namely, District Educational Officer, Nagapattinam that proper action was taken by the school teachers as well as by the
noon meal organizers and assistants, I am unable to countenance such contention for the simple reason that if such care was taken by the school
authorities as well as by the noon meal organizers and assistants, petitioner''s daughter could not have been allowed to go out of the school
premises during school hours, that too, during lunch hours and suffered serious injuries while she was playing Rattinam, causing amputation of her
right hand itself. Equally, I am unable to countenance the claim of the fifth respondent school authorities to the effect that they have taken care of
the children and if such care was taken by the fifth respondent, the unfortunate incident could not have occurred, as it is the duty of the school
authorities to take care of the children studying in their school by not allowing them to go out of the school premises during school hours without
the permission of the school authorities and that too, if the children are upto 5th standard, who are in their tender age. The learned Special
Government Pleader contended that even assuming that there is any negligence, liability to be fastened only on the school authorities as it is the duty
of the school watchman to prevent the children from going out of the school premises. I am unable to countenance such contention of the learned
Special Government Pleader for the simple reason that the occurrence, admittedly, said to have taken place during lunch hours, that too, at the time
of supplying noon meal and at that time, the noon meal organizers and assistants were also present and by no stretch of imagination, the noon meal
organizers and assistants are not at all liable for any negligence. It is to be reiterated that it is the utmost duty of the school authorities as well as the
noon meal organizers and the assistants to take care of the tender children and that too, during school hours and more particularly, during lunch
hours and during the supply of noon meal to the poor children.
The official respondents as well as the fifth respondent school authorities claim that the incident having taken place outside the school premises
and as such, they cannot be held liable for any negligence, it is pertinent to that the incident occurred very nearer to the school premises and it is
only 200 meters away from the school where the so called Rattinam was fixed by a private person, even as per the counter filed by the fourth
respondent herein. It is curious to note that only the fifth respondent stated, as per its counter, that some enquiry was conducted by the fourth
respondent, namely, District Elementary Educational Officer, in the month of January 2006 but the outcome of the enquiry is not known and the
fourth respondent, namely, District Elementary Educational Officer, has not whispered a word about the so called enquiry conducted by him, in his
counter. Therefore, it is crystal clear that both the school authorities and the official respondents conveniently withheld the material factor relating to
the unfortunate incident and the enquiry conducted by the District Educational Officer, for the reasons best known to them.
The learned counsel for the petitioner rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in M.S. Grewal and Another Vs.
Deep Chand Sood and Others, . That was a case wherein the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court was upheld by the Hon''ble Apex
Court, granting the relief of compensation on the ground of death of the students while they were taken to the playground by the school authorities.
The Hon''ble Apex Court has held that Article 226 can very well be invoked for granting the relief of compensation depending on the
circumstances of each case, particularly, on the ground of negligence to take care of the students by the school authorities. It is worthwhile to refer
certain portions of the decision rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court as hereunder:
Be it placed on record that in assessing damages, all relevant materials should and ought always be placed before the Court so as to enable the
Court to come to a conclusion in the matter of affectation of pecuniary benefit by reason of the unfortunate death. Though mathematical nicety is
not required but a rough and ready estimate can be had from the records claiming damages since award of damages cannot be had without any
material evidence: whereas one party is to be compensated, the other party is to compensate and as such there must always be some materials
available therefor. It is not a fanciful item of compensation but it is on legitimate expectation of loss of pecuniary benefits.
Negligence in common parlance means and implies failure to exercise due care expected for a reasonable prudent person. It is a breach of duty
and negligence in law ranging from inadvertence to shameful disregard of safety of others. In most instances, it is caused by heedlessness or
inadvertence, by which the negligent party is unaware of the results which may follow from his act. Negligence is thus a breach of duty or lack of
proper care in doing something; in short, it is want of attention and doing of something which is prudent and a reasonable man would not do (vide
Black''s Law Dictionary). Though sometimes, the word ''inadvertence'' stands and is used as a synonym to negligence, but in effect negligence
represents a state of mind which, however, is much serious in nature than mere inadvertence. There is thus existing a differentiation between the
two expression - whereas inadvertence is a milder form of negligence, ''negligence'' by itself means and implies a state of mind where there is no
regard for duty or the supposed care and attention which one ought to bestow.
Duty of care varies from situation to situation - whereas it would be the duty of the teacher to supervise the children in the playground but the
supervision, as the children leave the school, may not be required in the same degree as is in the play-field. While it is true that if the students are
taken to another school building for participation in certain games, it is sufficient exercise of diligence to know that the premises are otherwise safe
and secure, but undoubtedly if the students are taken out to playground near a river for fun and swim, the degree of care required stands at a much
higher degree and no deviation therefrom can be had on any count whatsoever. Mere satisfaction that the river is otherwise safe for swim by
reason of popular sayings will not be a sufficient compliance. As a matter of fact the degree of care required to be taken specially against the minor
children stands are a much higher level than adults: Children need much stricter care.
(emphasis supplied by this Court)
Incidentally, negligence is an independent Tort and has its own strict elements specially in the matter of children - the liability is thus absolute vis-a-
vis the children.
The Hon''ble Apex Court in the very same decision, observed as hereunder:
This plea of non-maintainability of the writ petition though advanced at the initial stage of the submissions but subsequently the same was not
pressed and as such, we need not detain ourselves on that score excepting however recording that the law courts exist for the society and they
have an obligation to meet the social aspirations of citizens since law courts must also respond to the needs of the people.
Law Court will lost its efficacy if it cannot possibly respond to the need of the society - technicalities there might be many, but the justice oriented
approach ought not to be thwarted on the basis of such technicality since technicality cannot and ought not to outweigh the course of justice.
The principles laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra are squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this
case also, the minor girl of the petitioner was aged about 12 years at the time of occurrence and she said to have lost her right hand, as the same
was amputated due to the injuries sustained by her and she suffered untold hardship, mental agony and torture. It is also relevant to note that the
minor girl is also now put into lifelong handicap and she would be facing difficulties in respect of marriage prospects as well as in respect of
employment opportunities. At the risk of repetition it is to be reiterated that in the case on hand, the occurrence said to have taken place during
school hours as that of the facts of the case in the decision rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court (cited supra). Therefore, this Court has no
hesitation to hold that the petitioner is entitled to seek the relief of compensation from the educational authorities, namely, official respondents as
well as the school authorities, namely, the fifth respondent herein, as the minor girl of the petitioner suffered amputation of her right hand only due to
the negligence and carelessness of the school authorities as well as the noon meal organizers and assistants.
Now coming to the quantum of compensation, it is vehemently contended by Mr. A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the fifth respondent, that
this Court cannot fix the quantum regarding damages and it is for the petitioner to approach only the Civil Court. I am unable to countenance such
contention for the simple reason that the occurrence, admittedly, said to have taken place within the school hours and it is the utmost and
paramount duty of the school authorities as well as the noon meal organizers to take care of the children during the school hours and the Hon''ble
Apex Court in the decision cited supra has held that in such a situation, Law Court will lose its efficacy if it cannot possibly respond to the need of
the society and the technicalities there might be many, but the justice oriented approach ought not to be thwarted on the basis of such technicality
since technicality cannot and ought not to outweigh the course of justice. This Court need not go deep in to the matter of assessing the damages,
but can very well come to the conclusion and arrive at the quantum on the basis of the admitted facts and the prima facie materials placed before it.
It is pertinent to note that as far as the case on hand is concerned, the undisputed fact remains that the minor girl of the petitioner suffered loss
of her right hand due to amputation only due to the carelessness and negligence of the school authorities as well as the noon meal organizers, as, if
such authorities have taken care, they could not have allowed the children to go out of the school premises during school hours. It is further
relevant to point out, at the risk of repetition, that the occurrence said to have taken place during lunch hours and at the time of supplying noon
meal to the children and the petitioner was admittedly one of the student enrolled for taking lunch provided by the noon meal scheme and,
admittedly, the noon meal organizers and assistants were also present at the time of the unfortunate incident. The F.I.R registered by the police also
produced before this Court, which clearly shows that the occurrence said to have taken place at 01.15 p.m on 22.12.2003 and the counter filed
by the official respondent, namely, fourth respondent, would state that the occurrence said to have taken place at 12.40 p.m on 22.12.2003, which
substantiates the version of the petitioner that the incident took place while the petitioner''s daughter has been waiting for the noon meal and at that
time, she came out along with other children and played in the Rattinam. This Court is also constrained to state that it is the duty of the school
authorities not only to prevent the students from going out of the school premises during school hours but also to give complaint to the authorities
concerned if any private persons indulged in bringing Rattinam and getting the same fixed in and around the school premises, which would naturally
attract the children.
At this juncture, it is also relevant to point out that the school authorities should take every step to take care of the children of the school as the
Hon''ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra has held that the degree of care required to be taken specially against minor children stands at a
much higher level than adults and children need much stricter care. It is also pointed out by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra that
mathematical nicety is not required in respect of assessing damages in a case like this and it is enough for the court to make a rough and ready
estimate from the materials available on record. The materials placed before this Court also referred in the earlier portion of the judgment to assess
proper compensation to be paid to the victim. It is seen that the petitioner claimed Rs. 5,00,000/-towards compensation. This Court already held
that both the Government as well as the school authorities are liable for such carelessness and negligence, which resulted in amputation of the right
hand of the petitioner''s minor child. Therefore, both the Government as well as the fifth respondent school management are liable to pay
compensation to the victim.
As pointed out by the Hon''ble Apex Court, it is not desirable to adopt an accurate mathematical assessment of the damages caused to the
minor daughter of the petitioner for fixing the compensation and it is suffice for this Court to arrive at the quantum on the basis of the prima facie
materials available on record and on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, coupled with the family background of the minor
daughter of the petitioner, namely, Muthulakshmi. It is pertinent to note that the victim girl hails from a downtrodden community and from a poor
family. The perusal of the F.I.R, Discharge Summary, written representation made by the petitioner dated 09.09.2005 and the admitted factors as
per the counter filed by the respondents, as already pointed out, discloses that the unfortunate incident resulting in the amputation of the right hand
of the victim, took place within the school hours, that too, during lunch hours. It is also already pointed out that though an enquiry said to have been
conducted by the official respondents, the outcome of such enquiry is not placed before this Court. It is needless to state that the petitioner and his
daughter, namely, victim could have undergone untold hardship and mental agony. Considering all these factors, a reasonable amount could be
fixed by this Court by fixing the responsibility both on the official respondents as well as the school authority, namely, the fifth respondent herein.
Considering the overall circumstances of the case and the materials placed before this Court, namely, F.I.R, Discharge Summary and the
admitted fact of amputation of the right hand of the minor girl of the petitioner and the repeated representation made by the petitioner including the
written representation dated 09.09.2005 and the conduct of the respondents in not raising a little finger to consider the written representation of the
petitioner, making pathetic claim of compensation, this Court is of the considered view that awarding an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-with 12% simple
interest per annum from the date of the representation of the petitioner dated 09.09.2005, towards compensation would meet the ends of justice. It
is made clear that out of the said amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-, the State Government shall pay Rs. 1,50,000/-and the school authorities, namely, fifth
respondent herein shall pay Rs. 1,50,000/-and such amount shall be paid within a period of twelve(12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
Before parting with this case, this Court is constrained to suggest the following measures to be taken by the State Government of Tamil Nadu
with the object of protecting the interest of the school children, who are in their tender age, by formulating the rules as hereunder:
(i) Children studying up to 5th standard in every school including Government and Private Schools shall not be allowed to go out of the school
premises during school hours, except with the prior permission to be obtained by parents/guardian or the authorized persons from the school
authorities in view of frequent reports of accidents and kidnapping of children by the anti-social elements.
(ii) During lunch hours, particularly, in the Schools where noon meal scheme is followed, noon meal organizers and assistants shall also be made
responsible for the safe custody of the school children along with the teachers and management of the school, who are the custodians of the
children of tender age studying upto 5th standard.
(iii) Private persons operating Rattinam (merry-go-round), amusement devices etc., for the children to play outside and nearer the school premises
should be prevented.
(iv) Sale of eatables outside and nearer the school premises should be prevented as most of them are unhygienic and cause serious health hazard to
the children.
Children are the national assets and they are the torchbearers of future India and as such, it is an obligation of each and every citizen as well as the
Government and Private School authorities to take utmost care to protect the interest of the children. It is high time that the Government should
take effective steps keeping in mind the above said objects, in view of the frequent reports of accidents and other incidents causing serious threat
to the safety, healthy and hygienic environment of the growing children.
K.N. Basha, J.
jvm
With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.