IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.
Pathi Venkata Narayana - Petitioner
Versus
The Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 14124 of 2022
Decided On : 12-01-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Compensation for death of minor due to negligence of school authorities - Petitioner entitled to compensation of Rs. 27,00,000/- for loss of son caused by collapse of dilapidated school building - Respondents failed in their statutory duty to ensure safety of children. (Paras 8, 20, 24)
(B) Vicarious Liability - The State is liable for compensation due to negligence of its officers in maintaining school safety - The principle of vicarious liability applies to public authorities for acts of negligence. (Paras 7, 24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner's son died when a dilapidated school building collapsed while he was playing. The petitioner sought compensation for the negligence of the school authorities.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the school authorities failed to take necessary precautions, leading to the child's death. The petitioner is entitled to compensation for the loss suffered.
Issues: The main issues were the liability of the school authorities and the amount of compensation due to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the school authorities had a statutory duty to ensure safety and failed to do so, resulting in the child's death. The State is liable for compensation under the principle of vicarious liability.
Result: Writ Petition allowed with compensation awarded.
ORDER :
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is hails from a poor BPL (Below Poverty Line) family and he is working as daily wage agricultural labour. He has two sons namely Vishnu Vardhan and Mahendar. Whereas his elder son namely Vishnu Vardhan aged about 11 years and he is studying 4th class at Sri. Vivekananda Vidya Peetam High School, Markapur. On 29.08.2021, which happens to be a public holiday, petitioner's elder son i.e., Vishnu Vardhan along with other children were playing at the Mandal Parishad Primary School building which is in a dilapidated condition, suddenly, beams and walls of the school building were collapsed and fell on the chest, stomach and body of the petitioner's son. Due to forcible fall of the beams and walls upon the son of the petitioner, he lost his breath and died on the spot. On the same day, the petitioner gave a report to the Sub- Inspector of Police, Markapur, Rural Police Station about the death of his son caused due to accidental fall of beams, walls and roof. Accordingly police registered a case in Crime No.169/2021 under Section 174 Cr.P.C.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that due to the negligence on the part of the respondents in keeping the dilapidated building as it is, the son of the petitioner, who was playing on 29.08.2021, which is being holiday at the subject school premises which is in a dilapidated condition and due to sudden collapse of the building, the son of the petitioner succumbed to death on the spot. He further submits that it is the statutory duty of the respondents, once the subject building is in dilapidated condition it should be demolished immediately and it cannot be continued to prevent untoward incidents, but negligently and due to dereliction of duties, such a severe dilapidated building was continued as it is, even after having an assessment and report it is in severe dilapidated condition. Therefore, the respondents are liable for the death of the son of the petitioner due to negligence and dereliction of duties, as per the principle of vicarious liability. Further, it is stated that though the petitioner submitted his representations and requests but reasons best known to the respondents neither responded as usual for payment of the compensation nor replied to the claim of petitioner. He further states that even after lapse of two years period having received the representations, but respondent authorities neither acted upon in redressal of grievance of the petitioner nor paid any compensation. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
4. Learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 has filed counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated that the 4th respondent/Mandal Educational Officer, Markapur has addressed a letter dated 06.09.2021 to the 3rd respondent/District Educational Officer stating that on 29.08.2021 at 4.00 pm four students including the son of the petitioner were playing in the dilapidated room of the Mandal Parishad Primary School (MPPS), Rajupalem(General) Markapuram Mandal. Due to sudden collapse of beam of the dilapidated school building, the entire building was collapsed upon the son of the petitioner, he sustained severe injuries and while he was taking t
Bhim Singh v. State of J and K (1985) 4 SCC 677
C.Chinnathambi v. State of Tamil Nadu 2002 ACJ 1243 (Madras)
Chandigarh Administration v. Rajni Vali AIR 2000 SC 634
Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu v. R. Selvam 2004 WLR 611
Lakshmana Naidu v. State of Tamil Nadu 2007 ACJ 1349 (Madras)
Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K.Gupta AIR 1994 SC 787
M.S. Grewal and Anr. v. Deep chand Sood and Ors. reported AIR 2001 SC 3660
Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 141
Saheli: A Women's Resources Centre v. Commissioner of Police
Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors.
Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India (1984) 1 SCC 339
State of A.P. v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy (2000) 5 SCC 712
State of Maharashtra v. Ravikant S. Patil (1991) 2 SCC 373)
V.Subramaniam v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 2010 ACJ 1861 : 2009 (1) CTC 434
The State is vicariously liable for compensation due to negligence in ensuring the safety of children in schools, as established under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of care owed by State authorities to provide a safe and secure environment for children, and the liability of the State for reparation of ....
The State is liable to pay compensation for the negligence of state functionaries in providing a safe and secure environment for children attending schools, and there is a need for strict compliance ....
Teachers have a heightened duty of care under the doctrine of loco parentis; failure to fulfill this duty resulting in student harm makes the state vicariously liable for their negligence.
Teachers must exercise a higher duty of care to ensure student safety during school events, as failure to do so can lead to liability for resulting harm.
The court established that the principle of res ipsa loquitur applies in cases of State negligence, allowing for compensation claims without needing to prove fault.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.