Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
M. Venugopal, J.
K. Veeraraghavan – Petitioner
Versus
Secretary to Government, School Education Department and Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 35052 of 2012
Decided On : 14-05-2014
RIGHT TO EDUCATION - COMPENSATION - NEGLIGENCE - SCHOOL AUTHORITIES - DEATH OF STUDENT - VICARIOUS LIABILITY - STATE GOVERNMENT - RES IPSA LOQUITUR - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION - INTEREST - RIGHT OF CHILDREN TO FREE AND COMPULSORY EDUCATION ACT, 2009 - RULES, 2010.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner's 8-year-old son, V. Prasanth, a 3rd Standard student at a Government Middle School, went missing during school hours. His body and that of his friend Vignesh, a 2nd Standard student, were later found drowned in a pond near the school. The Petitioner alleged negligence on the part of the school authorities, the State Government, and the Panchayat President, seeking compensation for his son's death.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the school authorities were negligent in their duty to supervise the students during school hours, leading to the tragic incident. The State Government was held vicariously liable for the negligence of its employees, the school authorities. The Court also applied the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur, presuming negligence based on the circumstances of the incident. The Court awarded compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the Petitioner, excluding an earlier grant of Rs. 5,000/- by the Government, along with interest at 7.5% per annum.
Issues: 1. Negligence of school authorities and State Government in ensuring the safety of students during school hours. 2. Vicarious liability of the State Government for the negligence of its employees. 3. Application of the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur in determining negligence. 4. Quantum of compensation to be awarded for the untimely death of a student due to negligence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court relied on various precedents to establish the duty of care owed by school authorities and the State Government towards students during school hours. Negligence was found based on the failure to supervise the students, leading to their drowning in a nearby pond. 2. The Court held that the State Government was vicariously liable for the negligence of its employees, the school authorities, as they were acting within the scope of their employment. 3. The Court applied the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur, presuming negligence based on the circumstances of the incident, where the injurious agency was under the management of the school authorities and the accident was not likely to occur in the ordinary course of things if proper care had been exercised. 4. The Court determined the quantum of compensation based on various factors, including the age of the deceased, the loss of future income, and the high rise in prices and inflation.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the Petitioner, excluding the earlier grant of Rs. 5,000/- by the Government, along with interest at 7.5% per annum within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Court also emphasized the importance of providing basic amenities like drinking water, toilets, and compound walls in schools, as mandated by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and its Rules, 2010.
M. Venugopal, J.
1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ of Mandamus praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondents to grant compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the death of his innocent son, which was caused due to the breach of duty, negligence and wrongful act of the officials of the Government.
2. The Resume of Facts:
(i) The Petitioner hails from a poor family background and he has wife and three children. He is working as an agriculture labour for daily wages in and around his village. His only son V. Prasanth, 8 years was studying in 3rd standard at Government Middle School, administered by the 7th Respondent.
(ii) His only son V. Prasanth went to school on 25.03.2009 and had not returned home till evening 5.00 p.m. Therefore, he and other villagers went in search of his missing child and enquired in the school and they were informed by the teachers that they were unaware of his whereabouts. On enquiry with a students, they informed that his son and his friends were available in the class till 12 p.m. and later on, they were not seen. They found the bag of his son inside the class room, with trembled mind and anxiety, they started searching in and around the school, we found the trouser of his son near a pond which is 25 feet away from the school and approximately 22 feet in depth. After that, with suspicion that his son might have slipped inside the pond, they started to search inside the pond where they found the dead body of his son and friend of his son, Master Vignesh. On enquiry, he was told that the class teacher of his son was absent for the day and an in-charge was appointed to take care of the students, the in-charge teacher was also not present in the class and not taking the attendance for the day thus exhibiting her negligence and caused breach of duty.
(iii) The Headmaster of the school without the approval from the higher authorities had arranged a Science Exhibition in the school wherein the students of the different classes are allowed to visit the Exhibition. The teachers of different classes assembled in the Exhibition Hall and got busy in arrangements to commence the Exhibition and failed to attend their duty to take charge of the students in the class rooms, thus attracting their negligence and show causing their breach of duty.
(iv) The 6th Respondent/Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Kattangulathur, after 'Enquiry' about the incident of Petitioner's son's death, had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the said in-charge teacher, from the media report he came to know that the 7th Respondent and two teachers were suspended during that period, which undoubtedly admits that the death of Petitioner's son and his friend were caused due to gross negligence and wrongful act of the school administration. The school management had not fulfilled the basic requirements of the students like Drinking Water, Toilet facilities, Erection of Compound Walls etc. due to non-fulfilment of basic amenities, students are constrained to go outside the school to attend their natural calls, even during the school hours. Like that his son went out of school during working hours of the school to attend his natural calls and while washing the same, he fell down into the pond and these facts were disclosed by his friends.
(v) After the accident, the Village Education Committee conducted a special meeting on 30.03.2009 in the presence of Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Additional Assistant Elementary Officer, Kattankulattur and others. In the said meeting, the Committee passed several resolutions that through the Director of School steps will be taken to construct a Compound Wall, to provide Toilet, the Commissioner would be approached, even during interval students would not be allowed to go outside the school, steps would be taken to get 'Financial Assistance' from the Government for the parents of the victim children and Departmental Proceedings would be initiated again
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
