The titled Complaint has been filed by Master Anmolpreet Singh Minor (the sufferer/victim) through her aggrieved mother Smt. Amarjit Kaur (W/o Naik Sh. Beant Singh Retired) against the titled opposite parties (the OP) on account of their negligent acts in omission resulting into one grave injury to the Right Eye of the complainant with a total loss of vision as a consequential damage. After having retired from Sikh Regmnt. Raipur Cantt., Bihar (Indian Army) the Ex Naik Beant Singh got his four year old son Master Anmolpreet Singh admitted in the OP1 School in Ist Standard, in the year 2011 and has been there, since. Further, as it had been a matter of sheer misfortune that on 11.04.2012 one of the complainant's class-mates Akash struck the sharpened edge of a lead pencil into his right eye piercing into it's interior, so as to damage it, permanently. It all happened in class-room itself and in the very presence of teacher Ms Nisha Sharma and that not only exhibits but proves lack of class-discipline there.                       

2.       The OP1 Army School is being run by the OP2 Army Public Education Society, that was established in the year 1983 for managing and ensuring proper education facilities to the children of Indian Army Personnel through local Military Authorities and it runs over 137 Army Public Schools across India and one of such school is Army Public School, Tibri Gdspr. Sadly, the school authorities had not provided urgent medical-aid to the injured complainant whose parents got him examined and treated at Arora Hospital, Gurdaspur and operated at Dr Daljit Singh Eye Hospital, Amritsar; but light could not be restored in the injured right eye. The complainant's parents continued consulting the eye-specialty hospitals (including the PGI, Chandigarh and the AIIMS, New Delhi) throughout the country for full five years and at the end in the year 2017 (finally surrendering to fate) got the Total-Loss Right Eye Disability Certificate and submitted the same to the OP1 School for getting some financial aid. The complainant's father had retired at 'Naik' Rank from the Indian Army and his petty pension had been the only source of livelihood/ family-income. He had already spent his whole-life savings/ investments/ terminal benefits on the eye-treatment of his complainant son during the period. The OP1 School had forwarded the complainant's case to the OP2 Society who however had returned it back on 20.12.2017 stating that related insurance claim could not be filed at this belated stage. The complainant addresses that the objection of 'delay' cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as well as against the principles of equity, good conscience and natural justice. Moreover, these were the opposite parties only who were duly aware of the availability of insurance at the school (for death/ injury/ others etc) for all the students/ teachers/officials present in school premises and it were only they who were to file related claim with the insurers, and the delay, if any, were on their part. The students on the rolls of School were contributing towards insurance along with school tuition fees. Moreover, the disability certificate could only be got on 26.09.2017. Both the OP had turned their backs towards their responsibility and even refused to accept their respective delinquency in not filing the insurance claim and/or arranging financial aid and/or having provided some interim monetary relief and hence the present complaint seeking an amount of Rs.15 Lac as compensation for loss of one eye, physical harassment and mental torture suffered by the complainant, along with his parents on account of delinquency on the OP part.

3.         Lastly, in support of his prosecution of the complaint, the complainant has put forth on records the following documents, in evidence, as:

i)                   Ex.C1/A -Affidavit-Smt. Amareet Kaur Complainant's Mother deposing contents of complaint;

ii)         Ex.C1 – Medical Disability Certificates from different Authorities;

iii)        Ex.C2 – Complainant Father's Letter (03.02.2018) to the OP2 Society; copy of letter dated (20.12.2017) to the OP1 & Other Correspondence;

 vi)       Ex.C3 – Aadhar Card of Complainant and his Mother Amarjeet Kaur;

4.        The OP1 and the OP2, in response to the Commission’s Summons, appeared through common counsel and filed its written-version, refuting therein, almost all allegations as made out in the complaint. At the very outset, the OP addressed the complaint as time-barred and not maintainable against them. And, the complaint is bad for non-joining of the necessary party insurers National Insurance Co., who had covered all those present there, at the OP1 premises for the period w e from 01.08.2011 to 31.07.2012 under Group Personal Accident Policy. On merits, the OP have stated that 7 paragraphs (out of a total of 12) need no reply being correct or a matter of record. Further, the complainant had not got the eye-injury as a result of in-discipline in the class and he was provided with medical-aid even at the Army Hospital. The claim was correctly returned by the OP2 as the same was submitted after almost 6 years of the occurrence; and the disability certificate was also received late on 07.12.2017 but the rules want the initial and final reports within 72 hours and 25 days, respectively. But, here the complainant had not reported the injury within the time frame-work. Further the matter was also taken up (with 30% disability) on 05.06.2018 but that had met the same fate of rejection on 24.06.2019. There's no delay on the OP part and no FIR was registered of the eye-injury accident and lastly the OP have pleaded dismissal of the present complaint, in the interest of law and justice. Finally, the OP, in their defense had produced the following documents in evidence as hereunder:

i) Ex.OP1,2/1 – Affidavit Ms Menka Gautam Principal deposing contents of the reply;

ii) EX.OP1,2/2 – Medical Disability Claim dated 08.12.2017;

iii) Ex.OP1,2/3 - Medical Disability Claim dated 20.12.2017;

iv) Ex.OP1,2/4 – Medical Disability Claim dated 16.02.2018;

v) Ex.OP1,2/5 – GPA Policy by the OP2 (05.03.2018) to New India Insurance;

 vi) Ex.OP1,2/6 – GPA Policy by the OP2 (12.03.2018) to the OP1;

vii) Ex.OP1,2/7 – GPA Policy Claim by the OP1 (21.03.2018) to the OP2;

viii) Ex.OP1,2/8 – GPA Policy Claim by the OP2 (06.06.2018);

ix) Ex.OP1,2/9 – GPA Policy Claim by the OP1 (20.08.2018) to the OP2;

x) Ex.OP1,2/10 – GPA Policy Claim by the OP2 (08.08.2018) to the OP1;

xi) Ex.OP1,2/11 – Inter-Se communique between the OP2 & its Addl Dir (AWES);

xii) Ex.OP1,2/12 – Letter dated 23.10.2018 from the OP1 to the OP2 Cell; 

xiii) Ex.OP1,2/13 – Reminder (12.02.2019) to Letter (23.10.2018) OP1 to OP2 Cell;

xiv) Ex.OP1,2/14 – Reminder (16.11.2018) to Letter (23.10.2018) OP1 to OP2 Cell; 

xv) Ex.OP1,2/15 – Inter-Se Communication on Mail between wings of the OP; 

xvi) Ex.OP1,2/16 – MOU between Insurers (National Insurance Co.) & OP2(AWES) For GPA Policy for Students/ Staff/ Employees of Army School/ Army Public Schools/ Army Professional Colleges & AWES Employees). This MOU stands placed on records by OP as Additional Evidence also vide Ex OP17.

5.        We have carefully examined the documents/evidence produced on record (along with the scope of ‘adverse inference’ for those ignored to be produced) in order to adjudicate/ determine the respective ‘claims’ as put-forth by the present litigants in the light of arguments put forth by their respective learned counsels. The complainant has allegedly suffered much hardship along with his parents on account of their having fallen 'prey' to the hounds of 'fate'. We observe that the both the OP have throughout dealt with the issue sensitively with sympathy and care cum assistive attitude as expected from educated people holding positions of responsibility, in life.                                                 

6.       We do feel from the very sensitivity of the language employed by both the OP in their inter-Se communique that complainant (his parents) must have been provided with the requisite financial-aid cum interim relief etc but as 'law' gets determined only in the embrace of 'evidence' we could not find the same manifested anywhere over the records put forth before us, here. The MOU Ex.OP1,2/16 had been executed between the Insurers and the OP2 and it clearly provides a compensation of Rs.2.50 Lac for loss of an eye or a limb and Rs.50,000/- as medical expenses, per person, vide its Clause 3 Section I (a)(v) and (b), respectively. We find that it were the duty of the OP only to file forth the insurance claim and it could even have been filed even in the absence of disability certificate (kept awaited/in abeyance) to get at least an interim relief by way of medical expenses with compensation kept on-hold. But the same was not even attempted. Whatsoever, document/ information requisite for the purpose could have been procured from the complainant (his parents). The OP were always in a better dominant position to get the disability certificate etc and delay, if any, gets attributed to them, obligatory and legally, too. We find the OP at delinquency on this issue and thus the applicable statute puts them forth on the receiving end. However, it shall be at the OP discretion to investigate delinquency or not at their end and/or to file claim with the insurers through condo-nation of delay or not but they need to compensate the complainant, for sure. 

7.        In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.2.50 Lac (compensation due for loss of one eye) Plus Rs.50,000/- (due as medical expenses) in terms of the insurance cover available at that point of time in the year 2011-12 along with interest @ 6% PA w e from the date of injury (11.04.2012) till actually paid Plus Rs.5,000/- as cost of the present litigation within 45 days of the receipt of the certified copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract an interest of 9% PA w e from the date of orders till paid, in full.   

8.        We somehow see the present award in an inappropriate minute disproportion to the gravity of loss and turmoil suffered by the minor complainant and his parents but we admire the majesty of law that keeps us bound by the applicable statute and the cardinal law of moderation. However, we set the present complainant (along with his parents) at liberty to avail of any other additional/alternate remedy (of choice) as available in law, for an additional relief.

9.         The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

10.      Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

(Naveen Puri)

                                                                  President.

ANNOUNCED:                                    (R.S.Sukhija)

JUNE 22, 2022.                                           Member.

YP.