JUDGMENT : N. Sathish Kumar, J. These two appeals are arising out of the order passed in the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.14538 of 2010 directing the State of Tamil Nadu, is the appellant in W.A.No.497 of 2002 to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and direction to the appellant in W.A.No.524 of 2012 to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% from 10th December, 2010 for the death of the minor child of the writ petitioner. 2. Since two appeals arising out of the same order, we are inclined to dispose of the two appeals in a common order. 3. The brief facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as follows:- The writ petitioner's son by name Mohammed Asif was a student of Little Flower Matriculation School, Cheranmahadevi Road, Tirunelveli Town, Tirunelveli District and he was a III Standard student aged about 9 years. On the date of unfortunate accident, writ petitioner's son along with other students of the Little Flower Matriculation School were taken to the Swimming Pool situated at Palayamkottai owned by the State Government. The students were accompanied by the School Teachers. On the date of unfortunate accident, the petitioner's son, due to improper care and negligence on the part of the School Teacher, was drowned in the Swimming Pool. Similarly, the Officials of the Anna Swimming Pool also did not take reasonable care. The authorities were not employed sufficient number of life savers, in view of the danger involved. Hence, the writ petition has been filed for claiming compensation for loss of petitioner's son in an accident in the Swimming Pool. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the District Sports Officer, it is contended that the death of the minor boy occurred due to the willful negligence on the part of the Teachers, who took 30 students for Swimming Pool. The Teachers were not present near the students while they were in the Swimming Pool. Only the negligence of the teachers alone contributed for the incident in question. The students have purchased the tickets at the rate of Rs.20/- per head for using the Swimming Pool for an hour only for taking bath. The students were not given any swimming coaching and it was only a lessor trip. Only the negligence of the teachers alone contributed for the incident in question. The students have purchased the tickets at the rate of Rs.20/- per head for using the Swimming Pool for an hour only for taking bath. The students were not given any swimming coaching and it was only a lessor trip. Life Guards were employed in the swimming pool and after seeing that the son of the petitioner was drowned, the life guards took him out of the pool and the petitioner son was given a first aid. 5. In nutshell, it is the contention of the District Sports Officer that the accident was occurred due to the negligence on the part of the Teacher. Wherein it is the contention of the Correspondent, the Little Flower Matriculation School that the School collected a sum of Rs.750/- per month for each student out of which, Rs.500/- would be paid to the swimming pool run by the Tamil Nadu Sports Development Authority. The Institution has been sending the students to the Swimming Pool for the last four years. The students were expected to pay at the rate of Rs.20/- per head on each visit and two teachers were accompanied with the students and there would be a life guards inside the swimming pool and coach employed by the Government would take care of the children and to train them. 6. On 27.06.2009 the petitioner's son was drowned in the swimming pool and infact the life guards were negligent at the relevant point of time. Hence, it is the contention that the Teachers are not negligent. 7. Taking into consideration of the rival submissions, the learned Single Judge has found that the death of the minor child was occurred due to the negligent on the part of the Teachers as well as the life guards employed by the State Government and awarded a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- to the writ petitioner and proportionally fixed the liability on the State Government and Correspondent of the School. 8. Aggrieved over the same, these two writ appeals have been filed by one State Government and another by the Correspondent of the School. 9. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants in W.A(MD)No.497 of 2012 submitted that the School children were brought to the Swimming Pool in a lessor Trip by the School Authorities. 8. Aggrieved over the same, these two writ appeals have been filed by one State Government and another by the Correspondent of the School. 9. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants in W.A(MD)No.497 of 2012 submitted that the School children were brought to the Swimming Pool in a lessor Trip by the School Authorities. When the children were taken out, out side the School premises, it is the duty of the Teachers, who accompanied the children, to take care of the minor children and that the children have purchased the tickets on their own and went inside the Swimming Pool. Unfortunately, the petitioner's son met with an accident by drowning in the Swimming Pool. Therefore, the Government cannot be made liable and only negligence on the part of the Teachers. Hence, prayed for allowing the writ appeal. 10. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A(MD)No.524 of 2012 is that the Swimming Pool is run by the Government and life Guards also appointed by the Government. It is the duty of the life guards to take care of the minor children, while the children are in the swimming pool. Merely because, the Teachers accompanied the children, negligence cannot be attributed against them, as it is the duty of the life guards to take reasonable care while the children are playing in the pool. Hence, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the Correspondent of the School cannot be made liable for the negligence on the part of the employees of the State Government. Therefore, prayed for allowing the appeal. 11. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondent that the learned Single Judge has rightly found that both the teachers as well as the employees of the State Government are negligent at the relevant time. Had they taken proper care while the children were playing in the swimming Pool, the petitioner's son would not have met ill-fated accident on the day. He further submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is well founded and does not require any interference. 12. Had they taken proper care while the children were playing in the swimming Pool, the petitioner's son would not have met ill-fated accident on the day. He further submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is well founded and does not require any interference. 12. In the light of the above submission, now point arises for consideration in these appeals are whether the appellants in both the appeals were not negligent on the date of accident, in which writ petitioner's son was died due to the drowning in the Swimming Pool. 13. We have considered the rival submission of the appellants and respondents and perused the writ petition and counter affidavits and also the orders of the learned Single Judge, on perusal of the materials as stated above and taking into the fact that the minor children into the swimming pool run by the State Government on the date of accident i.e., on 27.06.2009 is not disputed by both sides. Similarly, two teachers accompanying the minor children from the School is also not disputed by the Government. It is also not disputed that life guards also appointed in the Swimming Pool by the State Government to take care of the Swimmers to come for coaching. It is to be noted that when the children who are at tender age were taken out of the School premises by the School Authorities, utmost care is required by the School Authorities for the safety of the children. The School Authorities cannot simply shirk their responsibility by saying that they left the children in the custody of the employees, who managed the Swimming Pool. The safety of the children obviously was on the prime concern, so far as the School Authorities are concerned, it is not the case of the sixth respondent that in their counter affidavit that the teachers were in fact guarding the children and monitoring the children movement in and around the Swimming Pool, despite the due care, the petitioner's son met with ill-fated accident on drowning. It is nowhere stated in the counter affidavit of the sixth respondent that teachers have taken due care as to the safety of the children. It is nowhere stated in the counter affidavit of the sixth respondent that teachers have taken due care as to the safety of the children. In the absence of any such pleadings, we have no other option except to presume that the teachers were negligent at the relevant time and they did not take care for the safety of the children at the relevant point of time. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge as far as negligent aspect on the part of the teachers is concerned. 14. As far as the contention of the learned Government Advocate that the Government is not responsible. It is to be noted that admittedly the students were taken from the Schools along with teachers and they purchased tickets at the rate of Rs.20/- per head and allowed to use the Swimming Pool. As per the counter affidavit of the 7th respondent, the District Sports Officer, clearly shows that the purpose of the Swimming Pool established by the Sports Development Authority is only for the permission of swimmers of Tamil Nadu and also they are collecting meagre fees as service charge for the maintenance of the swimming pool. It is also admitted in the counter affidavit that on the date of the accident, the students came to the swimming pool for entertainment purpose and not for learning purpose and they purchased the tickets for using the swimming pool for an hour, only for taking path. Therefore, they are not given any coaching or training by the life guards, who entered the tickets and swimming on their own. It is to be noted that such a contention of the seventh respondent itself clearly show that their act is nothing but willful negligence. If the students of the tender age got from different School who have no prior training of swimming under the guidance of the coachers, collecting fees for using the swimming pool from such students itself is nothing but a deliberate and willful negligence on the part of the employees of the State Government. If the students of the tender age got from different School who have no prior training of swimming under the guidance of the coachers, collecting fees for using the swimming pool from such students itself is nothing but a deliberate and willful negligence on the part of the employees of the State Government. The counter affidavit itself would clearly indicate that knowing very well that the children are coming for entertainment purpose, without verifying whether the children have any skill or capable of swimming in the swimming pool, allowing such children to use the swimming pool is nothing but willful negligence on the part of the employees of the State Government. It is to be noted that when any activities is run by the Government or anybody which involves inherent risk of danger to the human being, more care about the safety is required for running the swimming Pool itself. Inherent risks is involved with regard to the freshers or the person not learnt the swimming. When such risks is involved in the swimming pool, it is the duty of the Government or the employees employed by the Government to take utmost care about the safety of others. In fact, the responsibility of the people, who carry out such activities which involves risk in human, life their liability would come under the category of strict liability. Even assuming that the children were negligent and teachers were also negligent, that will not relive the State Government from the responsibility of paying the damages or from making the compensation for loss of death of the human being. The act of the stranger is an exception to the Rule of strict liability. Had there being a sufficient life savers in the swimming pool at the relevant point of time, the minor child aged about 9 years would not have been drowned. It is a common sense that drowning would not take place within a few seconds, it will take few minutes. And there being a proper life savers or coachers present at the relevant time, this accident itself would not have occurred. These facts would clearly indicate that the employees of the State Government is also negligence in their duties. Therefore, the State Government cannot contend that they are not responsible for paying any compensation. And there being a proper life savers or coachers present at the relevant time, this accident itself would not have occurred. These facts would clearly indicate that the employees of the State Government is also negligence in their duties. Therefore, the State Government cannot contend that they are not responsible for paying any compensation. From the analysis of the pleadings of both sides and submissions, we find no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge awarding compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the loss of life of the writ petitioner's son. 15. The learned Single Judge taken into consideration of the escalation of the prizes, has awarded a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation payable by both the respondent and directed the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- by the Correspondent with a interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Even during the appeal, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Single Judge is not assailed by the learned counsels during the submissions. Hence, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the Single Judge is also based on the well-founded reasons and does not require any interference by this Court. 16. With the above observation, the writ appeals stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.