SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Mad) 2941

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
V. Subramaniam & Another
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Department of Education & Others
W.P.No.19260 of 2002 and W.P.M.P.No.26555 of 2002, W.P.No.14436 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008
Decided on : 14-08-2008

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:N. Manoharan, P. Rajendran, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, Mrs. E. Ranganayagi, Government Advocate, R3, A.K. Kumarasamy, Advocate.

Headnote:

Compensation - Negligence - Compound Wall - Sections 304A and 336 of IPC, Article 226 of Constitution of India - [W.P.No.19260 of 2002] - [Compensation, Negligence, Sections 304A and 336 of IPC, Article 226 of Constitution of India] - [Summary]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought compensation for the death of his son due to the fall of a compound wall at a school. The Headmaster of the school was accused of negligence, but was acquitted in a criminal case. The petitioner claimed that the school authorities were responsible for the safety of the students and failed to maintain the safety of the school buildings.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the death of the petitioner's son was due to the negligence of the subordinate officials of the respondents 1 and 2, who were responsible for maintaining the school buildings and compound walls. The court held that the respondents 1 and 2 were vicariously liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

Issues: The issues involved the negligence of the school authorities in maintaining the safety of the school buildings and compound walls, and the liability of the respondents 1 and 2 to pay compensation for the death of the petitioner's son.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various legal principles and precedents to establish the liability of the State to pay compensation for negligence resulting in the loss of life, as well as the fundamental right to education and the duty of the State to ensure proper and safe educational institutions.

Final Decision: The court directed respondents 1 and 2 to pay a compensation of Rs.3.5 lakhs to the petitioner, and deemed the petitioner in W.P.No.14436 of 2008 to be retired from service with effect from 312. 2001. The respondent in W.P.No.14436 of 2008 was also directed to sanction and pay the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of the order.

Judgment :-

In W.P.No.19260 of 2002, petitioner, who is the father of one Sathish @ Sathishkumar, a 5th Standard student of the Panchayat Union Elementary School, Thudupatty, Erode District, prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent/State Government to pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-for the death of his son due to the fall of compound wall of the School.

2. The third respondent in W.P.No.19260 of 2002, who was the Headmaster of the School, has filed W.P.No.14436 of 2008 praying to quash the order dated 15. 2008 rejecting his request to retire him from service and to pay the terminal benefits, which was not granted due to the pendency of W.P.No.19260 of 2002.

3. The facts leading to filing of these writ petitions are one and the same and the issue involved in both these writ petitions are inter-connected. Hence, both the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this common order are referred to as per their rank in W.P.No.19260 of 2002.

.5. The case of the petitioner is that his son S. Sathish @ Sathishkumar, aged 10 years was studying in 5th standard in the Panchayat Union Elementary School, Thudupatty, Erode District, and on 112. 2000 at about 3.50 p.m., the third respondent, in his capacity as Headmaster of the School directed the students including the petitioners son to clear the ground near the dilapidated compound wall of Noon-Meal Centre Room by removing the grass and shrubs. While clearing the grass and shrubs, a portion of the compound wall fell on the petitoners son viz., Sathish @ Sathishkumar. On coming to know the said incident, according to the petitioner, third respondent rashly and negligently used a big hammer to break the debris and the hammer hit on the face and mouth of the said Sathish @ Sathishkumar, due to which the petitioners son died on the spot. An F.I.R was filed in Crime No.505 of 2000 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Perundurai Police Station for offences under Sections 304A and 336 of IPC on the very same day. The Headmaster/third respondent was made as an accused and he was placed under suspension by the proceedings of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Erode, dated 112. 2000. According to the petitioner, petitioners son died due to the negligence of the Headmaster of the School, who failed to exercise reasonable and proper care by providing precautionary measures to avoid the death of the deceased Sathish @ Sathishkumar. Petitioner submitted a petition to the respondents on 11. 2002 and claimed compensation for the death of his 10 year old son. Since no action was taken to pay compensation, petitioner has filed W.P.No.19260 of 2002 praying for a mandamus directing the first respondent viz., the State Government to pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- to the petitioner for the death of his son viz., Sathish @ Sathishkumar.

.6. The third respondent/Headmaster of the School, who is also petitioner in W.P.No.14436 of 2008 in his affidavit submitted that on 112. 2000, while working as Headmaster of the Panchayat Union Elementary School, Thudupatty, Perundurai Block, Erode District, he was placed under suspension on the ground that a student died due to the collapse of a dilapidated compound wall. Petitioner filed O.A.No.1013 of 2001 before the State Administrative Tribunal and challenged the order of suspension and an interim stay was granted on 23. 2001. He was restored to service on 212. 2001 and was posted at Panchayat Union Elementary School, Velampalayam, and he joined duty in the said School. The third respondent was due to retire from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 312. 2001. Since criminal case was registered against him in respect of the death of the student viz., Sathish @ Sathishkumar and the criminal case was pending in C.C.No.101 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, petitioner was not allowed to retire by placing him under suspension. Peti






















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top