JUDGMENT : The 2nd defendant is the appellant before this Court challenging the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri in O.S.No.24 of 2009 dated 30.06.2011 in and by which the Learned Judge has decreed the suit directing the 2nd defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the plaintiff together with the interest at 9% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of the decree and thereafter at 7% from the date of the decree till the date of realization. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal is herein below narrated and the parties are referred to the same rank as before the Trail Court. 1. The plaintiffs had filed the above suit claiming a compensation of a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of their son. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that their son was studying in the 9th standard in 1st defendant's school and staying in the hostel attached to the school. On 11.05.2005, after completing the annual exam, the 1st defendant had permitted the said Karthick to learn swimming in the 2nd defendant's swimming pool. It appears that the 2nd defendant did not supervise the boy while he was swimming. As the result of this negligence, the said Karthick appears to have died by drowning in the swimming pool. Had their been proper supervision which is mandatory, the death not have happened. The plaintiff has lost their only son because of the negligence on the part of the defendant. 3. The plaintiff contended that the 1st defendant was under the control of the 3rd defendant, further the 2nd defendant was under the control of the 5th defendant. Therefore the plaintiffs have impleaded respondents 3 to 5 as parties in the above suit. The plaintiffs would contend that they had issued a legal notice dated 14.05.2005 calling upon defendant's 1 and 2 to pay compensation, however there was no positive response on the side of the defendants and the 1st defendant had issued a legal notice denying their liability. 4. The 1st defendant had filed a written statement inter-alia denying the claim of the plaintiffs and said that there was no permission given by the 1st defendant to the deceased Karthick to use the 2nd defendant's swimming pool. 4. The 1st defendant had filed a written statement inter-alia denying the claim of the plaintiffs and said that there was no permission given by the 1st defendant to the deceased Karthick to use the 2nd defendant's swimming pool. They would submit that they are in no way responsible for the death, as the swimming pool is situated nearly 4km away from the 1st defendant's school. The 1st defendant would further submit that on 11.05.2005 by midday all the students had vacated their hostel and their signatures had been obtained by the authorities. The holiday had been declared from 11.05.2005 to 17.05.2005 and the school was slated to reopen on 18.05.2005. Therefore they would submit that they are not responsible for the death of the said Karthick. They also submitted that they had got to learn that the Karthick had died while learning swimming in the 2nd defendant's swimming pool. They would state that the 1st defendant is an unnecessary party to the proceedings as they are not liable for the death of the said Karthick and the suit may be dismissed against them. 5. The 2nd defendant had filed a written statement inter-alia denying the claim against them. The 2nd defendant would deny that the said Karthick was studying in the 1st defendant's school and that he was very studious child in following the rules and regulations of the school. They would further submit that the 2nd defendant had admitted the students into the swimming pool, after receiving a fee of Rs.10/- per hour. Before permitting the children to swim they had enquired, whether the children knew swimming and only after ascertaining the same, children were permitted to swim. The 2nd defendant would submit that, contrary to the instruction, the deceased Karthick was swimming in the deep and therefore the death was caused due to the negligence of the deceased Karthick. 6. The learned District Judge on perusing the pleadings had framed the following issues:- (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the defendants 1 to 5? (2) Whether the deceased Karthick go to swimming pool for taking training with permission of 1st defendant? (3) Is is true to say that the deceased Karthick went to his house on 11.05.2005 at about 2.00 O'clock? (4) Whether the plaintiffs are not entitled to get compensation from 1st defendant is true? (2) Whether the deceased Karthick go to swimming pool for taking training with permission of 1st defendant? (3) Is is true to say that the deceased Karthick went to his house on 11.05.2005 at about 2.00 O'clock? (4) Whether the plaintiffs are not entitled to get compensation from 1st defendant is true? (5) Whether the suit is bad for non jointer of necessary parties? (6) Is it true to say that the death would be caused due to negligent on part of the deceased Karthick? (7) Is it true to say that the plaintiffs can not seek any relief against the defendants 2 to 5? (8) Whether the defendants are entitled to get compensatory cost from plaintiffs? (9) Whether the defendants 2 to 5 are unnecessary parties to the suit? (10) To what any other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled? 7. The parties had gone to the Trail on the basis of the above issue. The 1st plaintiff had examined himself as PW1 and marked Exhibits A1 to A14. On the side of the defendants, three of them were examined as DW1 to DW3 and Exhibits B1 to B7 were marked. On perusing all the records the learned Judge had partly decreed the suit. 8. Challenging the above Judgment and decree, the 2nd defendant is before this Court, since the liability has been fallen on the 2nd defendant. 9. The learned Counsel, Mr.Azhaguraman appearing on behalf of the appellant would contend that the Court below has lost the sight on a very vital issue that the said Karthick was not undergoing training in the 2nd defendant's swimming pool. It was only a casual visit to use the pool on payment of charges. He would further submit that since, it was a general pool, it was difficult to monitor each of them separately. He would also submit that there was no rational in arriving at the decree. 10. Per Contra, the learned Counsel, Mr.S.Kolandasamy appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that it is mandatory that a lifeguard or a trainer be available at the swimming pool so as to immediately respond in case of any emergency when swimmers were having difficulties in the swimming pool. In the instant case, there was no such lifeguard/trainer, as a result of which the said Karthick lost his life. He would further argue that the compensation given is too huge. In the instant case, there was no such lifeguard/trainer, as a result of which the said Karthick lost his life. He would further argue that the compensation given is too huge. But, however the plaintiffs have not filed an appeal to enhance the compensation. 11. The only point for consideration that arises in the above appeal is, “Whether the 2nd defendant had been negligent in supervising the activities in the swimming pool which was under their control as a result of which the minor Karthick had lost his life?” 12. From the written statement of the 1st defendant's school as well as the plaint, it is seen that the deceased Karthick had enrolled in the swimming class being conducted by the 2nd defendant. The Trail Court had relied upon the evidence of the defendants that they had received a sum of Rs.10/- from the deceased Karthick for entering the swimming pool and for taking training. From the evidence, it appears that the 2nd defendant had not taken any precautionary steps before permitting the young students to enter the swimming pool. There was no provision for providing life jackets and the records also indicates that person appointed to supervising the students on that day was not available anywhere near the pool. Therefore the negligence is writ large. The 2nd defendant who is in charge of the swimming pool was therefore liable. Having received the payment, it is automatically the responsibility of the 2nd defendant and he ought to have taken precautionary steps, particularly when they were permitting minor students to enter into the swimming pool. Therefore the finding of the Court below that the 2nd defendant alone was liable to compensate the plaintiffs is correct. The Trail Court has framed a separate issue recording the negligence and has elaborately considered the same and answered the issue against the 2nd defendant. The point for consideration is answered against the appellant. 13. The learned Principal District Judge has elaborately considered the evidence on record before passing the decree and no exception can be taken to the same. In fine, the first appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri in O.S.No.24 of 2009 dated 30.06.2011 is confirmed.