FA.No.1608/2006  against C.C.No.416/2005, District Forum-I, Visakhapatnam.

Between:

Vidya Sagar School (English Medium)

Rep. by its Correspondent, Near Anand Vanam,

Bheemunipatnam.                                                                             .Appellant/

                                                                                                Opp.party

And

Sagi Krishna Chaitanya

S/o.Sai Seetha Rama Raju, Hindu,

Aged about 10 years, being minor

Rep. by his father Natural Guardian,

Sagi Seetha Rama Raju, S/o.late Narasimha

Raju, Hindu, aged about 32 years,

R/o.H.No.58, New Colony, Mandugunda Thota

Of Kata Veedhi, Vizianagaram.                                                      Respondent/

                                                                                                            Complainant.

Counsel for the Appellant:                M/s.G.Ramagopal.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Counsel for the Respondent.           M/s.M.Rupender

                        QUORUM:SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

AND

SRI K.SATYANAND, HON’BLE MEMBER.     

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH  DAY OF AUGUST,

TWO THOUSAND NINE

ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri K.Satyanand, Member .)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ***

            This is an appeal filed by the opposite party before the District Forum which found the appellant deficient in service and consequently directed it to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards expenses incurred for treatment of the injuries along with costs in a sum of Rs.1,000/-.

        The facts of the case stated briefly are as follows:

        The complainant is a child of 10 years admitted into the opposite party school for studies.  The opposite party claimed that having regard to the financial status of the parents of the complainant, they admitted him giving a concession in school fees by collecting only one third of the school fees stipulated.  The boy was also accommodated in a hostel.  At the time of mishap, the school was in vacation and all the other boarders left for their native places.  This complainant and another boy, by name, Kishore, remained in the hostel and they were being fed,as usual.  On the fateful day, the complainant informed the warden and went to toilet.  Some time later, some boys reported the warden that the complainant was found suffering with burn injuries.  It came to light that he sustained injuries when he stealithly brought fire crackers and flower pots and burnt them for fun.  As the boy suffered considerable burnt injuries, he was soon shifted to hospital under intimation to the parents and he was given treatment.  It is the complaint of the parents of the complainant that he was not very well looked after by the management of the school and in fact it was the negligence of the management in allowing such things to happen in the premises that signified the deficiency in service.  So the father of the complainant filed this complaint claiming damages, compensation as also expenses.

        The claim was resisted by the opposite party on the ground inter alia that the complainant himself was responsible for his plight and the management was all along accommodating to his needs and looked after his lodging, boarding and education.  It flatly repudiated the claim saying that it cannot be held guilty of any negligence and therefore compelled to make any payment by way of compensation or towards expenses for the medicare that was allegedly given to the complainant in the wake of the accident.

        In support of his case, the complainant’s father filed an affidavit and relied upon Exs.A1 to A6.  On the other hand, the opposite party filed an affidavit of a third party in order prove their innocence.  They did not file any documents.

        On a consideration of the evidence adduced on either side, the District Forum found that there was an element of negligence on the part of the opposite party in as much as the opposite party who was in a position of a local  guardian of the child in question allowed such a thing to happen without taking preventive steps.  The District Forum did not however allow the entire claim and merely ordered payment of Rs.50,000/- towards medical and other expenses as also costs of Rs.1,000/-.

        Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party filed the present appeal contending inter alia that the District Forum was wrong in holding the opposite party accountable for the mishap that occurred on 31-3-2003 and it was the complainant that was to blame in dabbling with fire works. 

        Heard both sides. 

The point that arises for consideration is  whether there are any good grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum.

          Most of the basic facts are not at all in dispute.  The complainant was no other than the student of the opposite party school and he was also a boarder in the hostel attached to the school.  It may be true that he was given some concession and all that, but the fact remains that whatever little it might be, the complainant parents were paying some amount by way of fees to the school and thus the school as such filled the position of a ‘service provider’ vis-à-vis the complainant a ‘consumer’ correspondingly.  Then the question of deficiency in service has to be examined.  It is a matter of common knowledge that a boarder of a hostel, who is admittedly a child, will have to be taken care of by the warden of the hostel and the school authorities.  In other words, the school management will have to conduct itself as a local guardian and protector of a child student who was also a boarder.  If the boarder comes in some peril, they cannot claim to exonerate themselves by throwing the blame at the door steps of the child boarder.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has very categorically held in a recent decision rendered in        AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 3660 that in the matter of safety of children there can be no let up and the management cannot be allowed to plead any excuse.  The relevant dicta contained in para 16 of the said decision is as follows:

        ‘If the students are taken out to playground near a river for

          fun and swim, the degree of care required stands at a much

          higher degree and no deviation there from can be had on any count

          whatsoever.  Mere satisfaction that the river is otherwise safe

          for swim by reason of popular saying will not be sufficient compliance.

          As a matter of fact the degree of care required to be taken

          specially against the minor children stands at a much higher level

          than adults: Children need much stricter care”.

In view of the clear law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the management cannot be heard to say that they were neither liable nor amenable to any charge of deficiency in service.    Thus we do not see any flaw in the order of the District Forum.

        Accordingly the appeal is dismissed with costs in a sum of Rs.3,000/-.  The appellant is granted six weeks time to comply with the order of the District Forum and also pay the costs in this appeal. 

MEMBER.           

                                                                                      MEMBER

                                                                         Dated 18-8-2009