1. This Writ Petition is at the instance of a minor, who lost her right eye, on account of the inhuman act of beating with a stick by her teacher, seventh respondent herein. The minor has come up with this Writ Petition through her mother for a direction to the respondents to pay her compensation.

BACKGROUND FACTS:

2. The minor petitioner is the daughter of a driver. The minor was enrolled as a student in Rathish English Matric School owned by the sixth respondent. The seventh respondent was employed as a teacher in the said Institution. The minor was studying in LKG.

3. The mother of the minor petitioner, in her affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, submitted that on 01 March, 2012, she was informed that her daughter suffered injury in her right eye and she was taken to Vasan Eye Care. By the time she reached Vasan Eye Care, the child was shifted to Aravind Eye Hospital, Tirunelveli and admitted there. The minor had undergone a surgery to remove the sticks from the right eye. The doctors took few pieces of stick from the right eye of the minor petitioner after surgery. The minor petitioner was hospitalized for 9 days at Aravind Eye Hospital. The Experts have opined that it would be difficult to save the right eye. The treatment is being continued. The writ petitioner has already spent considerable amount for treatment. The Management has not reimbursed the amount spent for treatment. The Writ Petitioner, therefore, has come up with this Writ Petition for compensation.

4. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, the second respondent in the Writ Petition, filed a counter-affidavit practically assisting the Management. According to the second respondent, even though the seventh respondent was holding a stick, it was not used against the children.

The second respondent wanted this Writ Petition to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability.

5. The sixth respondent, in his counter-affidavit, contended that on 01 March, 2012, after the class hours, the students rushed to board the van. While so, the minor petitioner accidentally hit against the stick which was in the hands of the seventh respondent. It was, therefore, a simple accident. According to the sixth respondent, the minor petitioner is now having proper vision after treatment. He is, therefore, not liable to pay compensation.

6. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, the fourth respondent in the Writ Petition, filed a counter-affidavit indicating that the investigation revealed that the minor petitioner was beaten by a stick in her right eye by the seventh respondent.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and the learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7.

DISCUSSION:

8. There is no dispute that the minor petitioner sustained injury on her right eye. The sixth respondent has come out with a defence that the minor petitioner fell down in a mess and in that process, she came in contact with a stick in the hands of the seventh respondent. The said contention is adopted by the second respondent presumably with a view to help the Management to avoid payment of compensation. The counter-affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police contains a honest version of the incident. According to the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, the investigation conducted by the police clearly proved that the minor petitioner was beaten by stick in her right eye by the seventh respondent. Even though the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, made a clear attempt to help the respondents 5 to 7, the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, very honestly narrated the actual event on the basis of materials collected during investigation.

9. The materials available on record and more particularly, the statement given by the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, after investigation, clearly shows that the writ petitioner was beaten by the seventh respondent with a stick. The m