Vicarious liability applies when an employee's negligent act, committed during the course of employment, directly results in injury, establishing grounds for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Ninala Jayasurya, J.

The present appeal is preferred by the State aggrieved by Judgment and decree in O.S No.24 of 2008 on the file of V Addl. District Judge, Kadapa., dated 17.08.2010.

2. The 1st respondent represented by his next friend father filed a suit towards expenditure incurred apart from compensation for the injury sustained by him. As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff/respondent No.1, son of a coolie and a fourth class student was present in the classroom on 27.10.2006. The 4th defendant/respondent No.2 who is a Teacher in the M.P Elementary School., with a view to punish a student by name Anand, had chased him with a stick and entered into the classroom of the plaintiff and raised the stick, but due to his carelessness and negligence, the stick contacted the right eye of the plaintiff and a result of the same, he sustained grievous injury. The father of the plaintiff took him to Rayachoty, Government Hospital for treatment, on their advice joined him in L.V Prasad Eye Hospital, Hyderabad., where a surgery was conducted and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-., was incurred for the same. Though the 4th defendant/respondent No.2 promised that he would meet the medical expenditure, he had not paid any amount and therefore, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed suit claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

3. In the Trial Court the appellants/defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. The 4th defendant/respondent No.2 contested the suit by filing written statement. During the course of trial, the Trial Court formulated the following issues:-

“1. Whether the 4th defendant has caused the grievous injury to the right eye of the minor plaintiff as pleaded by the plaintiff?

2. Whether the Minor plaintiff is entitled for any compensation for the injury sustained by him?. If so at what rate and against which of the defendants?

3. To what relief?”

4. On behalf of plaintiff PWs.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A1 to A18 were marked. The defendant No.4/respondent No.2 was examined as DW1. He had not adduced any documentary evidence.

5. Before the Trial Court, the 4th defendant/respondent No.2 inter alia pleaded that he was not responsible for the injury and the plaintiff/respondent No.1 might have sustained the same by falling on ground. However, the learned Trial Court by considering the evidence of PWs.2 to 5 coupled with Ex.A.15-letter addressed by the Teacher/defendant No.4 to the DEO, Kadapa recorded a finding that the injury sustained by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 to the right eye was on account of deliberate act of the 4th defendant/respondent No.2.

6. Insofar as the claim for compensation for the injury as also expenditure incurred for the treatment, the Doctor who was examined as PW6 categorically deposed that the visual impairment suffered by the plaintiff is 30% as per uniform definition of Physically Handicapped, Ministry of Welfare, Government of India. He further deposed that there is no chance of getting vision to the right eye and the plaintiff was advised to put an artificial eye. He also deposed that plaintiff/respondent No.1 requires regular checkup to the left eye for six months to keep left eye safe.

7. Taking the oral evidence adduced through PW.6 and the documentary evidence i.e., Exs.A1 and A2, Discharge Summary issued by Sankar Nethralaya, Eye Hospital and Opthaimic Report issued by Dr.Agarwal Subhash Eye Hospital, Chennai, Ex.A12 Visually Handicapped Certificate issued by S.V.R.R. Hospital, Tirupathi, etc., into consideration, the learned Trial Judge had arrived at the compensation for the disability suffered by the plaintiff by adoptin