The duty of care and liability for negligence arise when a party's inaction leads to foreseeable harm, reaffirming the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

1. The appeal arises out of the judgment of dismissal dated 01.11.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. Money Suit 10 of 2019 and related decree thereof, whereby the claim of the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) for Rs.15,00,000/- was rejected.

2. The plaintiffs state that the deceased Ranjit Kumar Tripura along with Parendra Aslong, Hadajoy Aslong and others, were playing football in the playground of Padmarai Karbari Para J.B School on 08.04.2017 at about 5 pm. When Hadajoy Aslong was running with the football, suddenly he fell into the abandoned ring well, situated inside the said school compound and did not come out therefrom. To save Hadajoy Aslong, Parendra Aslong thereafter got down into the well and he also did not come out therefrom and then the deceased, Ranjit Kumar Tripura went inside the well to rescue his two friends and he also did not come out. Ultimately, Fire Service authority was informed by the locals and they rescued the corpse of all these three persons from the said well and all of them died due to suffocation by methyl gas emitting from said well. According to the plaintiffs, the said ring well was under the control and management of the school authority or rather the defendants and they left the well uncared condition without any fencing or protection where for the said incident occurred. It is further stated that at the time of death, Ranjit Kumar Tripura was 22 years old, earning Rs.7,500/- per month being a day labour and also by rearing cows, pigs etc. The plaintiffs sent notice dated 27.11.2017 through her Advocate to the defendants but the same fetched no positive response from them and thereafter, the suit was filed.

3. All the defendants categorically denied their responsibility regarding the said incident vis - a - vis the responsibility to pay any compensation. According to them, the well was not inside the school complex and it did not belong to any of the defendants. Additionally, it was also claimed that there was protective fencing around the said well and no one could go inside the well without climbing that fence. Moreover, the incident occurred after the school hours.

4. The main ground for dismissal of the suit by the learned trial court was that first of all Hadajoy Aslong and Parendra Aslong went inside the well and did not come out and therefore, it was apparent that Ranjit Kumar Tripura did not accidentally fall into the well, rather consciously he went inside the same and therefore, it was not an accidental death and hence, the plaintiffs were not entitled to get any compensation.

5. Learned trial court framed total 5(five) numbers of issues and the plaintiffs adduced 5(five) witnesses including plaintiff No.1 and also proved certain documents into the evidence. From the side of the defendants, 3(three) witnesses were examined but they did not lead any documentary evidence.

6. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs argues on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and submits that in the case of claims in respect of Hadajoy Aslong, the said court awarded compensation but in the case of claims in respect of Parendra Aslong and Ranjit Kumar Tripura, same were rejected. Therefore, the present appeal and another appeal bearing No.RFA 01 of 2023 were filed in this court. According to Mr. Majumder, learned senior counsel, from the evidence it was established that the well was inside the school complex and was under the management and control of a school authority