BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONAT HYDERABAD.
C. C. 10/2009
Between:
Samanthepudi Hemanth Kumar Raja
(deceased minor) Rep. through his
Natural Father
S. A. Sathyanarayana Raju
S/o. S. Appala Raju, Age: 41 years
Building Labour, D.No. 42-4-140
Samanthapudi Varu Street
Ramakrishnapuram
Vijaywada. *** Complainant
And
1. Ravindra Bharathi Public School
Rep. by its Secretary & Correspondent
V. Venkateshwara Rao
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
2. Veeramachaneni Venkateswara Rao
S/o. Ankineedu, Age: 52 years
Secretary & Correspondent
Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
3. Panchamarthi Sarala
W/o. Sambasiva Rao
Headmistress
Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
4. Dasari Mikhayael
S/o. D. Souri Raju
PET, Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
5. Digumarthi Murali
S/o. Venkata Rao
General Supervisor
Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
6. Pothuri Shiva Narayana Raju
S/o. Subba Raju, Teacher
Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
7. Kalakanti Rajesh, S/o. Das
Teacher, Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
8. Yalamanchili Srinivas Rao
S/o. Satyanarayana, Teacher
Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
9. Md. Khaja, S/o. Abdul Salam
Teacher, Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada. *** Opposite Parties
C. C. 11/2009
Between:
1, Kandra Konda Vishuvardhan Rao
(Minor - died)
2. Kandra Konda Anil Kumar
(Minor - died)
Rep. through his natural Father
Kandra Konda Prabhakar Rao
s/o. K. Chinna Pullaiah
Age: 43 years, Railway Guard
South Central Railway,
R/o. 42-2/1-9, 1st Line
Devinagar, Vijaywada-3. *** Complainant
And
1. Ravindra Bharathi Public School
Rep. by its Secretary & Correspondent
V. Venkateshwara Rao
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
2. Veeramachaneni Venkateswara Rao
S/o. Ankineedu, Age: 52 years
Secretary & Correspondent
Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
3. Panchamarthi Sarala
W/o. Sambasiva Rao
Headmistress
Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
4. Dasari Mikhayael
S/o. D. Souri Raju
PET, Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
5. Digumarthi Murali
S/o. Venkata Rao
General Supervisor
Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
6. Pothuri Shiva Narayana Raju
S/o. Subba Raju, Teacher
Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
7. Kalakanti Rajesh, S/o. Das
Teacher, Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
8. Yalamanchili Srinivas Rao
S/o. Satyanarayana, Teacher
Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
9. Md. Khaja, S/o. Abdul Salam
Teacher, Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada. *** Opposite Parties
C. C. 12/2009
Between:
Valiveru Teja Sai, (deceased minor)
Rep. through his natural Father
Valiveru Durga Malleswara Rao
S/o. Canchaiah, Age: 45 years
Pvt. Service, D.No. 14-11-29
Atchuta Ramaiah Street
Hanumanpet, Vijaywada-3. *** Complainant
And
1. Ravindra Bharathi Public School
Rep. by its Secretary & Correspondent
V. Venkateshwara Rao
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
2. Veeramachaneni Venkateswara Rao
S/o. Ankineedu, Age: 52 years
Secretary & Correspondent
Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
3. Panchamarthi Sarala
W/o. Sambasiva Rao
Headmistress
Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
4. Dasari Mikhayael
S/o. D. Souri Raju
PET, Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
5. Digumarthi Murali
S/o. Venkata Rao
General Supervisor
Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
6. Pothuri Shiva Narayana Raju
S/o. Subba Raju, Teacher
Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
7. Kalakanti Rajesh, S/o. Das
Teacher, Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
8. Yalamanchili Srinivas Rao
S/o. Satyanarayana, Teacher
Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
9. Md. Khaja, S/o. Abdul Salam
Teacher, Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada. *** Opposite Parties
C. C. 13/2009
Between:
Perecherla Jayanth Varma
(deceased minor)
Rep. through his natural Father
P. V. Subba Raju,
S/o. Satyanarayana Raju, 44 years
D.No. 23-28-46, Challapalli Vari Street
Laximnagar, S.N. Puram
Vijaywada. *** Complainant
And
1. Ravindra Bharathi Public School
Rep. by its Secretary & Correspondent
V. Venkateshwara Rao
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
2. Veeramachaneni Venkateswara Rao
S/o. Ankineedu, Age: 52 years
Secretary & Correspondent
Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
3. Panchamarthi Sarala
W/o. Sambasiva Rao
Headmistress
Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
4. Dasari Mikhayael
S/o. D. Souri Raju
PET, Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
5. Digumarthi Murali
S/o. Venkata Rao
General Supervisor
Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
6. Pothuri Shiva Narayana Raju
S/o. Subba Raju, Teacher
Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
7. Kalakanti Rajesh, S/o. Das
Teacher, Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
8. Yalamanchili Srinivas Rao
S/o. Satyanarayana, Teacher
Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
9. Md. Khaja, S/o. Abdul Salam
Teacher, Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada. *** Opposite Parties
C. C. 14/2009
Between:
Kota Chaitanya
(deceased minor)
Rep. through his natural mother
Smt. K. Padma
W/o. Late K.V.V. Satyanarayana
Age: 42 years , R/o. 23-10/5-70
Ambativari Veedhi
Backside of Drainage Office
Srinaar, 5th Lane, Vijaywada-11. *** Complainant
And
1. Ravindra Bharathi Public School
Rep. by its Secretary & Correspondent
V. Venkateshwara Rao
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
2. Veeramachaneni Venkateswara Rao
S/o. Ankineedu, Age: 52 years
Secretary & Correspondent
Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
3. Panchamarthi Sarala
W/o. Sambasiva Rao
Headmistress
Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
4. Dasari Mikhayael
S/o. D. Souri Raju
PET, Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
5. Digumarthi Murali
S/o. Venkata Rao
General Supervisor
Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
6. Pothuri Shiva Narayana Raju
S/o. Subba Raju, Teacher
Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
7. Kalakanti Rajesh, S/o. Das
Teacher, Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
8. Yalamanchili Srinivas Rao
S/o. Satyanarayana, Teacher
Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada.
9. Md. Khaja, S/o. Abdul Salam
Teacher, Ravindra Bharathi Public School
23-3-8A, Narravari Street
Satyanarayanapuram
Vijayawada. *** Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainants: M/s. R.K.G. Bhatia
Counsel for the O.Ps: M/s. V. Narayana Reddy
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
TUESDAY, THIS THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
***
1) These complaints are filed by the complainants on the death of their children viz., S. Hemanth Kumar Raja, aged 14 years studying IXth class C.C. Nos. 10/2009, Kandra Konda Vishnuvardhan Rao, aged 13 years, studying IXth class, Kandra Konda Anil Kumar, aged 11 years, studying VIIIth class C.C. 11/2009, Valiveru Teja Sai, aged 12 years, studying VIIIth class C.C. 12/2009, Perecherla Jayath Varma, aged 15 years, studying Xth class C.C. 13/2009 and Kota Chaitanya, aged 14 years studying IXth class C.C. 14/2009 by drowning while they were taken to a picnic by the opposite party educational institution claiming compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs each.
2) Since all these cases pertain to the very same institution against which these complaints were filed and the facts and law involved therein are being common, they are disposed of by a common order.
3) The case of the complainants in short is that their children are studying in Op1 educational institution. Op2 is the secretary, Op3 is the head-mistress, Op4 is the PET, Op5 is the general supervisor and Op6 to Op9 are teachers in OP1 institution. While so, Op3 has organized a picnic programme for students studying in classes IIIIrd to Xth on 27.11.2005. The parents were informed that the staff was taking the children to mango gardens near Munneru river for picnic - Karthika Samaradhana Vanosthvam by collecting Rs. 125/- from each of the student. Accordingly on 27.11.2005 430 students were taken to the picnic spot. As there was lack of proper care and want of attention 15 children were drowned in Munneru River. Opposite parties had not exercised either caution or diligence to know whether the place could be safe for students to be taken. The parents were not informed about the place where the picnic was organized, in the sense presence of river etc. Relying on their representations that their children would be safe and teachers and staff were accompanying them, they sent their children. Unfortunately the children were drowned. Since there was ex-faice negligence on the part of school authorities they complained to the A.P. State Human Rights Commission. The police also registered a criminal case against them in Crime No. 242/05 u/s 304 IPC and later registered a case in C.C. No. 152/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandigama. The recognition of the school was withdrawn by the Regional Joint Director. An interim report submitted to the Human Rights Commission made it clear that it is not known whether permission was taken from the Dist. Educational Officer for taking such a large number of students outside the school premises. The vehicles they used were not having requisite permit to go to beyond Vijayawada town. Nearly 430 students were taken to the picnic for which only one male staff member and 24 women staff were deputed. The sudden death of their children caused mental agony and anguish. They have lost future support. They are all brilliant students. The incident had taken place on 27.11.2005 and that the complaints could be filed only on 18.7.2008 two years after the incident. They were of the opinion that the complaint before the Human Rights Commission would be adequate, it was due to a mistaken advise. Therefore this Commission could condone the delay of 234 days by invoking Section 24(A)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, and enquire into the matter and award compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs each against Ops 1 to 9 by fixing joint and several liability.
4) The opposite parties resisted the case. While admitting the accident occurred on 27.11.2005 wherein 15 school children died when they were taken to Karthika Vanasamaradhana arranged at Ithavaram village of Krishna district they denied there was any negligence on their part. Their school is a premier institute securing almost 99% to 100% pass in VIIth & Xth class. Every year they have been arranging Karthika Vanasamaradhana for school children from 3rd to 10th classes in a mango garden nearby Munneru river bank at Ithavaram village. Accordingly on 27.11.2005 after taking all precautionary measures including deployment of sufficient number of teachers at the ratio of 1:10, 421 students were attended, and 42 teachers were deputed to look after them. In fact several parents have requested them for arranging the programme. After sending individual circulars and after taking consent of their parents on cost to cost basis expenditure they were taken. There was no compulsion to any student for attending the above said Karthika Vanasamaradhana. There was only ankle deep shallow water. While so on 27.11.2005 on the said date at about 11.15 a.m. some boys were playing with a ball and it suddenly fell into the nearby water, and the boys rushed towards the water in their anxiety to bring the ball and fell in the unnoticed pit existed in the shallow water unknowingly. Though their staff members were vigilant this unfortunate incident took place. In fact police officials as well as the electronic media mentioned that incident might have taken place due to illegal quarrying of sand near the bridge which caused huge pits. A case was registered against them on which they surrendered and obtained bail. The Government also instituted a Magisterial enquiry. When the parents of four children had approached the Lok Adalat for redressal it was settled for Rs. 2 lakhs each. They were ready to do whatever is within its means to share the burden of the parents, and their commitment to the student community and their education. In fact there was no negligence on their part. The Human Rights Commission enquired into the matter but judgment was yet to be delivered. A private complaint was also filed in the court of chief metropolitan magistrate at Vijayawada and the same was dismissed against which a Criminal Revision No. 126/2006 has been filed before the metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. The compensation claimed is highly imaginary and excessive. The claim was hiked in order to clutch the jurisdiction of this Commission. Since the school has already paid Rs. 2 lakhs as was awarded by the Legal Services Authority in respect of other children, the complainants be awarded the same amount and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5) The complainants in proof of their case filed their affidavit evidences and got Exs. A1 to A19 marked while the opposite parties filed the affidavit evidence of its Secretary Veeramachaneni Venkateswara Rao and affidavit evidence of one P. V. Praveen, Physics teacher and got Exs. B1 to B34 marked.
6) The points that arise for consideration are :
i. Whether there was negligence on the part of opposite party educational institution in allowing the children to Munneru river and answerable for their drowning and consequential death.
ii. Whether the complainants were entitled to any compensation? If so to what amount?
iii. To what relief?
7) It is an undisputed fact that the children of the complainants were studying in Ravindra Bharathi Public School at Vijayawada. They were all aged between 10 and 14 years. While so, Op1 has arranged a picnic Karthika Vanasamaradhana near Munneru river for their students. 430 students and 40 teachers went to the venue in seven vehicles. The picnic was right under the Keesara bridge on Vijayawada – Hyderabad national highway. It appears due to excavation of river sand in the river bed some pits were formed at a depth of more than 6 feet. There was erosion of sand due to recent floods. At about 11.00 a.m. when the boys were playing with the ball, it seems it slipped into the water. In order to secure it 4 or 5 boys initially drowned and hearing their cries and in order to save them 11 children rushed and they were also drowned. In all 15 children died in the unfortunate incident. The complainants allege negligence on the part of school authorities. Had they been taken care by visiting the place before fixing the venue they could have seen the illegal quarrying, and enormous pits in the river bed. The very spot was uncongenial for arranging a picnic, and that too for students aged between 10 and 14 years. Though Op2 correspondent in his affidavit mentioned that they had inspected the spot earlier and having found safe fixed the venue, the opposite parties could not file the affidavit of those persons who had inspected the place for arranging the picnic spot.
8) In fact when the Human Rights Commission had taken cognizance of this matter, deputed the Members of the Commission to inquire into and submit a preliminary report they made exhaustive inquiry and filed a report Ex. A4 wherein they observed that:
“ A tent was also laid on the western river bed abutting the western bund of the river as it is dried up and a cassette player was on, with some music where some 35 teachers out of them 11 are gents were taking their break-fast, after all the buses carrying the students reached the spot by about 10 a.m. Meanwhile some boys taking volley ball, tossing the same walked across the river to the mid point, of course crossing the water patches here and there, the depth of which is not even knee deep. As they approached the centre of the river it appears there is a deep pit which is not visible to the naked eye and when the ball slipped into the water some 4 or 5 boys fell down in the process of collecting the ball and when others wanted to rescue them, they also fell into the pit. This happened around 11.00 and 11.30 a.m.”
Finally it opined that
“ When nearly 430 students were taken, the male staff members are only 1 while 24 are ladies. Whether this number is adequate in such a situation to look after the students, who will be in joyful and playful mood, besides being carefree on such occasions is another question.”
9) On a report the police also registered a case in Crime No. 242/2005, enquired into the matter and filed charge sheet against all the opposite parties u/s 304 IPC alleging that:
“The management is engaged with some of their staff in preparation of snacks to the students without attending the care of the students and left the students for their fate in a dangerous place, where the rivulet of Munneru is flowing. Due to their negligent act and lack of supervision and care for the safety of the students, the immature students, rather attraction on water flow and as there is no control over them, some of the students i.e., the deceased 1 to 15 began drowning in the stream of water and died.”
It is not known as to the outcome of the criminal case as well as the investigation made by the Human Rights Commission. Evidently there was negligence on the part of opposite party institution in not adequately monitoring the students. It is their bounden duty to take care of the students. In fact the very choosing of the place nearby a river itself is indiscretion on their part leading to the tragedy. The educational institution ought to have visualized it. Therefore, we have no hesitation in stating that there was negligence on the part of opposite parties but for their negligence the tragedy could have been happened.
10) In “Rao’s Law of negligence (Second Edition, The Law Book company) the learned author quoting from English authorities under the chapter ‘Liability of Schools and School Masters’ at page 742 observed:
“It has long ago been established that the duty of school master towards his pupils is that of a parent to his child, that is, he should take such care of a pupil as a careful parent would of his child. A careful parent would always try to keep his children at arms length from any source of damage from which a child especially of tender years might receive injury. So, must the schoolmaster towards his pupils. Applying this standard of care, it was held that where a schoolmaster told a girl of fourteen to go into his room to pike the fire and draw the damper and while doing so the girl’s apron caught fire and caused burns, it was held that the teacher was negligent.(1) Where a local education authority provided a conveyance to take children to and from their houses without a conductor in attendance, and a pupil of one of their schools, a girl of thirteen, was injured when she fell off the step at the rear, it was held that the education authority were negligent in not providing a conductor to look after the safety of the children using the conveyance. (2)
On the same topic :
Denning , L.J. said “The duty of school master does not extend to constant supervision of all the boys, all the time. This is not practicable. Only reasonable supervision is required. The amount of supervision must, therefore, necessarily depend upon the age of the pupils, the time, the place and other circumstances of each particular case, and it is a question of fact whether in any particular case, the supervision is adequate.” (3) (page 744 of the above said book)
11) The above test is reiterated in the following decisions. It held at page 745).
“The test which should be applied is the test of what a reasonably careful parent would have done in the circumstances, and applying the same to the facts of the instant case, the court was careful enough to confine the contours of negligence in such a manner that while picnics continue to be arranged the young urchins are not left the whim and caprice of the supervising teachers, and thus held that the test of reasonably careful parent would apply to the facts of the instant case where the damage to the young boys was apparent, obvious and foreseeable because of the close proximity of the river, and the general allurement or attraction of the river to boys of very young age. As for liability, the teachers who were with the boys on picnic to supervise them were held liable for their act of negligence.”
12) In a somewhat similar case, Gujarat State Commission in Consumer Education & Research Society Vs. Nelson Higher Secondary School reported in IV (2006) CPJ 275 having found that :
“The school authorities when they select a place near river bank and as many as 325 students joined the picnic, ought to have made adequate arrangements to ensure that no untoward incident takes place. It ought to have realized that the students of this age would behave in an unpredictable manner which may be hazardous/dangerous to life. The degree of care expected of teachers has to be judged considering the circumstances attending the case. If the possibility of danger emerging is reasonably apparent, then to take no or less precaution is negligence but if the possibility of danger emerging is only a mere possibility which would never occur to the mind of a reasonable man, then there is no negligence in not having taken extraordinary precaution. In the instant case, the possibility of untoward incident taking place cannot be said to be a fantastic possibility looking to the age group of the students. In our opinion, adequate degree of care/caution cannot be stated to have been taken by the school authorities and some more precaution, in our opinion ought to have been taken and failure to do this, in our opinion, would suggest negligence on the part of the school authorities.
It further held that:
“It may be realized that the safety of the students were put in the care of the teachers and the teachers were required to exercise the maximum degree of care towards the students to ensure their safety. It is needless to state that the degree of care required to be exercised by the teachers is the same as the degree of care exercised by parents at home for the safety of the inmates. In the instant case, in our opinion, the teachers accompanying the students have failed to exercise that degree of care which would ensure the safety of lives of the students who were allowed to go in water not realizing that the students would go ahead in water and depth of water could be more than near the bank and therefore the degree of care required was much more than ordinary care where water would be more deep than the depth at the bank”.
(1) Smith v Martin & Hull Corporation (2) Shrinpton V Hertfordshire (3) Clark v Mommouthshire
Otherwise, the delay can be condoned in the light of the fact that they are all pursing the proceedings before the Human Rights Commission and Criminal Courts. Not that they would award compensation, but as far as delay is concerned it is a valid point. Op1 is absolutely liable to pay compensation. As for liability of Ops 2 to 9, the Correspondent & Headmistress (Ops 2 & 3) were not liable at the most they permitted the picnic party to be taken out. In regard to Ops 4 to 9 who were with the boys on picnic to supervise them were no doubt guilty however as Op1 institution who had employed them was held liable vicariously, we do not intend them to pay compensation.
13) In fact all this discussion is unnecessary in view of the fact that the opposite party had agreed to pay which in fact had paid in some of the cases where matters were settled before the Legal Services Authority proceedings of which are marked as Exs. B26 to B34. They did not oppose for the delay in filing the complainants. Even the opposite party institution pleads that the same compensation be maintained that they were all same group.
14) In the above case cited by us for a boy of 15 years studying 8th standard, it observed:
“In the case of death of children, parents can claim present value of future contribution which the deceased would have made to them. The dependency can be estimated by computing the annual contribution which the child would have made from the date of his probable earning. The question as to when a child would have reached such an earning capacity and as to what he could have contributed would depend on the health, family background, father’s or family profession, if any, the capacity of the parents to educate the child etc. In our opinion, the income can be computed at Rs. 2,400 per month of which 1/3rd amount can be reasonably expected to have been spent for oneself which would leave the amount of Rs. 1,600 per month x 12 = Rs. 19,200 per annum which would be the dependency benefit available to the parents. Looking to the age of Satbir, in our opinion, multiplier of 15 years would be just and proper which would give the amount at Rs. 2,88,000 (Rs. 19200x15). This would be the dependency benefit which the complainants would be entitled to. Over and above Rs. 2,88,000, in our view, an amount of Rs. 50,000 by way of conventional amount would also be required to be paid to the complainants. Thus, in all, the complainants would be entitled to Rs. 3,38,000. In our opinion bearing in mind the facts of the case, it is just and proper compensation.”
The decision was rendered in the year 2005 about five years ago.
15) The Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), 1994 (1) TAC 323 has observed
“that the determination of the quantum of compensation must answer what contemporary society would deem to be a fair sum such as would allowed the wrongdoer to hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done fair thing. The amount awarded must not be niggardly since the law valued life and limb in a free society in generous scales. All this means that the sum awarded must be fair and reasonable by accepted legal standard. In the instant case, the learned Tribunal has discussed all the evidence in depth and assessed the compensation which is found to be fair and reasonable. The impugned award is neither contrary to nor inconsistent with the relevant facts as per the evidences and well settled principle of law.”
16) We do not want to reiterate that the amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the complainant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects etc. have to be considered. Even the opposite parties themselves pleaded that it is a reputed educational institution churn out very good students who may ultimately settle in high positions. Undoubtedly it could not be stated as to what could be the nature of occupation ultimately they would take up. In its very nature whenever a tribunal or court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of this nature, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards.
17) In cases of this nature, it was stated that compensation awarded must be reasonable, must be assessed with moderation having regard to the awards made in comparable cases, the sums awarded should to a considerable extent be conventional keeping in line with the changes in the value of money. It is only by adherence to these self imposed rules that the courts can decide like cases in like manner and bring about a measure of predictability of their awards. These considerations are of great importance if administration of justice in this field is to command the respect of community. Considering the death of these children and the period that has been elapsed from the earlier judgments, we are of the opinion that an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs for each of the deceased boy could be awarded, which we feel reasonable and modest.
18) In the result the complaints are allowed in part. Op1 is directed to pay Rs. 5 lakhs for each of the deceased boy payable to the complainants in C.C. 10/2009 to C.C. No. 14/2009 with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of complaint viz., from 18.7.2008 till the date of realization together with costs of Rs. 5,000/- each. The case against opposite parties 2 to 9 is dismissed. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
COMPLAINANTS: OPPOSITE PARTY
None None
DOCUMETNS MARKED FOR COMPLAINNTS:
Ex.A-1 Circular for class 3 to 10 date 24-11-2005 Telugu and English Translation
Ex A-2 FIR Cr.No.242/2005 dated : 27.11.2005 PS Kanchi Cherla
Ex A-3 Charge Sheet dt. 28.02.2006
Ex A-4 Interim Report of State Human Right Commission dt: 5.12.2005.
Ex A-5 Panchanama Report.
Ex A-6 Birth Certificate of Master K.V. Vardhan Rao dt 04.01.1992
Ex A-7 Birth Certificate of K. Anil Kumar (Deceased ) dt 8.8.1993
Ex A-8 Merit Certificates pertaining to K. Vishnu Virdhan Rao
Ex A-9 Birth Certificate of V. Teja Sai (Deceased)
Ex A-10 Merit Certificate of V. Teja Sai.
Ex A-11 Sarvotham Jeevan Raksha Padak issued by the GOI dt: 19.11.2007
Ex A-12 Certificate of Bravery issued by Canara Bank in New Delhi dt. 22.1.2007
Ex A-13 Condolence telegram issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh
Ex A-14 Birth Certificate of Jayanth Varma dt 13.4.1991(Deceased)
Ex A-15 Death Certificate of Master K. Chaithanya issued by MRO, Kesara.
Ex A-16 Science Search Talent Certificate issued by UCI
Ex A-17 Bourn Vita Quiz Contest Certificate dt : 16.9.2004
Ex A-18 Merit Certificates
Ex A-19 Birth Certificate of S. Hemanth Kumar (Deceased)
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PATIES: :
Ex B-1 Attended Staff in Vana Samaradhana
Ex B-2 Vth Class Incharge Vana Samaradhana
Ex B-3 VIIIth Class Incharge Vana Samaradhana
Ex B-4 IXth Class Incharge Vana Samaradhana
Ex B-5 Xth Class Inchage Vana Samaradhana
Ex B-6 Incharge – Kalyani, Rajeshwari
Ex B-7 Incharge – Chandana , Sujatha
Ex B-8 Incharge –Padma , Jyothi
Ex B-9 Incharge – Uma , Mahuva
Ex B-10 Incharge – Dayan, Kiranmai
Ex B-11 Incharge –Sridevi, Susan
Ex B-12 Incharge –Preethi, Thabita
Ex B-13 Incharge – Roja Rani, Sambasiva Rao
Ex B-14 Incharge – Ganesh, Usha
Ex B-15 VI, VII Incharge Madhuri, Narimani
Ex B-16 VII Incharge Nirmala, Kiran Kumar
Ex B-17 VII & VIII Incharge Parasuram, Kamesh
Ex B-18 VIII Class Incharge VP Geetha, T. Srinivas
Ex B-19 IX Class Incharge Siva Reddy, GVN Mahesh
Ex B-20 IX Class Incharge Nagaraja Kumari, PV Praveen
Ex B-21 X Class Incharge – Ashok, Narendra
Ex B-22 to Eenadu local paper clippings
B-25
Ex B-26 Order in PLC No.592 /2005, dt :09.1.2006
Ex B-27 Order in PLC No.593 /2005, dt :09.01.2006
Ex B-28 Order in PLC No.594 /2005, dt :09.01.2006
Ex B-29 Order in PLC No.595/2005, dt :09.01.2006
Ex B-30 Order in PLC No.597/2005, dt :09.01.2006
Ex B-31 Order in PLC No.598/2005, dt :09.01.2006
Ex B-32 Order in PLC No.209/06 , dt :22.04.2006
Ex B-33 Order in PLC No.210/06, dt : 22.04.2006
Ex B-34 Receipt, dt :02.01.2006
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 20. 07.2010
*pnr
