Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 55 (ORI)

G. Gouri Sankara v. State of Orissa

2007-01-18

M.M.DAS

body2007
JUDGMENT M. M. DAS, J. : On 8.6.1999, the son of the petitioner who was studying in the Government Boys High School at Jeypore, went to school to obtain the mark sheet and to know his result in the examination in which he appeared. When he entered the school campus, it started raining heavily. In search of shelter, he along with two other boys stood by the side of the boundary wall of the school. The boundary wall suddenly collapsed and fell over them. Though the other two boys could escape, the son of the petitioner was trapped under the debris. On being informed about the incident by some people, the petitioner who is the father, rushed to the school. The son of the petitioner was taken out from under the debris and being seriously injured was carried to the hospital where he was declared dead. The uncle of the de¬ceased lodged information about this incident in the Jeypore Police Station. On receipt of the said information, the Inspec¬tor-in-charge of the said police station registered P.S. Case No.9 of 1999 corresponding to G.R. Case No.44 of 1999 and direct¬ed the Sub-Inspector of Police to enquire into the matter. After investigation, the police submitted a final report stating that the deceased died due to collapse of the boundary wall which fell over him. On autopsy being carried on the body of the deceased, the Medical Officer opined that the death of the deceased was due to the fall of the boundary wall on him. 2. The petitioner who is the father of the deceased, has approached this Court in the present writ petition claiming compensation on account of the death of his son. The petitioner has alleged that the boundary wall of the said school, was con¬structed by the Public Works Department in the year 1998 and the construction being of a sub-standard nature, the same collapsed within a year. The occurrence being an out-come of negligence on the part of the Public Works Department, the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the loss of the life of his son. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opp.parties being sworn to by the Assistant Engineer of the Public Works Department, Jeypore. The occurrence being an out-come of negligence on the part of the Public Works Department, the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the loss of the life of his son. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opp.parties being sworn to by the Assistant Engineer of the Public Works Department, Jeypore. The allegations made in the writ petition while being denied, it has been stated in the coun¬ter affidavit that the boundary wall in question was not con¬structed in the year 1998 but in the year 1979-80. No comments have been made with regard to the occurrence on the ground that the deponent who has sworn the affidavit was not present at the spot. It has been further pleaded that the Public Works Depart¬ment is not responsible for the unfortunate death of the son of the petitioner and, thus, the opp.parties are not liable to pay any compensation. The further plea taken by the opp.parties is that the writ petition involves disputed questions of fact and, as such, is not maintainable. 4. Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision in the case of Dharanidhar Panda and another v. State of Orissa and others, 98 (2004) C.L.T. 706 submitted that this Court in the said decision, while examining a similar ques¬tion, relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court, has held that in the facts of the said case, the death of the two children on account of collapse of the pillar and a portion of the bound¬ary wall of the school took place due to breach of the duties of the school authorities to ensure that the school premises, in which the children are playing, were safe in all respect and this Court further held that the State of Orissa is vicariously liable to compensate the petitioner therein. 5. The decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Kumari (Smt.) v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, AIR 1992 S.C. 2069 , Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others (2001) 8 SCC 197 and M.S. Grewal and another v. Deepm Chand Sood and others (2001) 8 SCC 151 which were relied upon by this Court in the case of Dharanidhar Panda and another (supra), clearly support the stand taken by the petitioner. We also find that the school in question where the deceased was studying and the boundary wall of which collapsed causing the death of the deceased, is a Govern¬ment school. It is also an admitted case that the boundary wall was constructed by the Public Works Department. 6. In view of the above facts, the ratio of the decisions cited above squarely applies to the facts of the present case and we are of the view that the petitioner who is the father of the unfortunate boy is entitled to be compensated. With regard to the quantum of compensation in such cases, it is to be stated that there cannot be a hard and first rule for calculating the same, nor there can be a binding precedent as such. As has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Grewal and another (supra), quantification of compensation in each case is to be dealt with on its own peculiar facts and is to be assessed on the basis of such facts. The Supreme Court has further held in the said deci¬sion that placement in the society and financial status can be some guiding factors, but, however, this issue is to be judged on the basis of the fact situation of the concerned matter and not on mathematical niceties. In view of the above, we hold that this writ petition filed by the father of the deceased is maintainable and the petitioner is entitled to be compensated. 7. Now coming to the question of assessment of the compen¬sation payable to the petitioner, we would state that loss of human life can never be compensated in money value nor the loss of the son to his father and the mental agony undergone by the father also can be assessed in money value. 7. Now coming to the question of assessment of the compen¬sation payable to the petitioner, we would state that loss of human life can never be compensated in money value nor the loss of the son to his father and the mental agony undergone by the father also can be assessed in money value. However, considering the undisputed averments made in the writ petition that the peti¬tioner appeared in the H.S.C. examination and after examination was over, he was working at Konark Medical Store on a monthly salary of Rs.2000/- since one month before his death and taking into consideration the irreparable loss sustained by the peti¬tioner due to the sudden accidental death of his son, we are of the view that it would be fair and equitable if the petitioner is granted a compensation of Rs.1.50 lakhs with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition, i.e., from 4.9.2000 till the date of payment. We accordingly direct the opp.party No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.1.50 lakhs with simple interest @ 6% per annum calculated from 4.9.2000 till the date of payment, within a period of one month from the date of communication of this judgment. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. S. B. ROY, C.J. I agree. Petition allowed.