S. Paramasivam Achari vs The Headmaster, Govt. High School and Others

T. Meenakumari, J.—The writ petition is for the issue of writ of mandamus to direct the Respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the

Petitioner as compensation.

The brief facts in this case are, that the Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking compensation from the Respondents for the death of his son

Muthiah aged 16 years, the said Muthiah was a student of Government High School, Amur; he was studying of X Std. on 11.3.1994 he went to

school and in the forenoon, the Petitioner was informed that his son has died in the school campus; and averment made in the affidavit is that the

Petitioner''s son has gone to the urinal attached to the school which is situated within the campus of the school; the boy died due to the collapse of

the wall.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the wall was in a very dilapidated condition because of the usage of the tractors for ploughing

the land. Several representations were made by the local people to repair the wall but the concerned authority did not take any action to repair the

wall. The postmortem report also revealed that the boy died due to the head injury. There was fracture in the skull and the death was

instantaneous. The Petitioner has alleged that the incident could have been averted if the concerned authorities had taken proper care in maintaining

the building. It has been contended that the mother of the boy has become ill on the demise of her son. The Petitioner is a goldsmith by profession

and the boy who died was the last son to the parents. The Petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the death of the boy.

In this case, the Respondents have filed a counter admitting that the said Muthia was studying in X Std. in the year 1993-94 in Government High

School Amur. They have stated in the counter that the boy used incomplete public latrine. The Respondents have admitted that the death had

occurred within the campus of the school. They have informed the police also. The police officials visited the spot and carried the body to the

Government Hospital for postmortem. They have stated that they have paid an amount for Rs. 2,000/- by bank draft dated 22.12.1994 to the

Petitioner.

Learned Government Advocate has vehemently opposed for granting of compensation to the Petitioner stating that the boy has not used the

urinals situated within the campus of the school. But the fact remains that the boy died within the campus of the school and whether he has used the

public latrine or the urinals, need not be gone into in this writ petition. As the death to occurred within the campus of the school, the Respondents

are bound to pay the compensation to the Petitioner. The other factor to be noted in this case is that the wall was damaged and the school

authorities did not care to repair the same which shows that there was negligence on the part of the Respondents.

In a catena of decisions, the Supreme Court has granted compensation to the aggrieved persons. In Smt. Kumari Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and

others, , the Supreme Court had directed the State Government to pay Rs. 50,000/- for the death of a six year child who died due to falling in

uncovered sewerage tank"".

In Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, , the Supreme Court had held as follows:

State is liable to compensate for loss or injury suffered by a citizen due to arbitrary actions of its employees. Public authorities who are entrusted

with statutory function cannot act negligently. No functionary in exercise of statutory power can claim immunity, except to the extent protected by

the statute itself. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provision oppressively are accountable for their behaviour before

authorities created under the statute like the commission or the Courts entrusted with responsibility of maintaining the rule of law. The authority

empowered to function under the statute with exercising power discharges public duty. It has to act to subserve general welfare and common

good. In discharging this duty honestly and bona fide, loss may accrue to any person. But where it is found that exercise of discretion was mala fide

and the complainant is entitled to compensation for mental and physical harassment then the officer cannot more claim to be under protective

cover. In modern society no authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary. When a citizen seeks to recover

compensation from a public authority in respect of injuries suffered by him for capricious exercise of power then it has a statutory obligation to

award the same if proved.

The jurisdiction and power of the courts to indemnify a citizen for injury suffered due to abuse of power by public authority is founded on the

principle that an award of exemplary damage can serve a useful purpose in indicating the strength of law. A public functionary if he acts maliciously

or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides

protection against it. He is responsible for it; must suffer for it. Compensation or damages may arise even when the officer discharges his duty

honestly and bona fide. But when it arises due to arbitrary or capricious behaviour then it looses its individual character and assumes social

significance. Award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in

curing social evil.

Following the decisions of the Supreme Court cited supra, it has to be held that the Respondents are liable to compensate for the loss suffered

by the Petitioner due to arbitrary action of the Respondents and the Petitioner is entitled, to compensation for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees

two lakhs only) in total. The third Respondent is directed to pay the said amount to the Petitioner on or before 15th September 1999. With the

above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 30273 of 1994 is closed. In this case, the endeavour made by

Ms. P. Selvi, Government Advocate, is appreciated.