Compensation for death of boy within the hostel premises
sudhirghabasu
(Querist) 13 October 2011
This query is : Resolved
Sir,I, Sudhir, a practicing advocate in the High court of Chennai, have a query before our learned experts. My query is: A 18 years old boy belonging to the S.C. community and studying in an I.T.I was staying in a S. C. /S.T. hostel. He was murder by one of his room mate. The murder occurred within the hostel premises i.e. in the room in which he was staying. Police had registered a case and the accused was also arrested. Now his father had filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High court of Chennai, against the hostel authorities and the collector, praying for a compensation. when the matter came up for hearing, upon hearing my arguments the Hon'ble court had suggested me to produce some relevant authorities i.e. citation identical to the above case. I had learned through my friends that Justice Mr. Paul Vasanthakumar had passed a Judgement in a similar case allowing compensation and the same was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supremem Court in writ appeal. Though i had tried my best i was not able to trace the Judgment. Please give me the citation and help me to get compensation for a poor family.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 13 October 2011
you are entitled to compensation ion account of negligence of hostel authorities .
The Chief Secretary To The ... vs Mrs. R. Selvam on 21 April, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2004) 3 MLJ 295
Author: A Venkatachalamoorthy
Bench: A Venkatachalamoorthy, P Misra
JUDGMENT
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.
1. The daughter of the respondent, late Miss.R.Suchithra, joined the Thanjavur Medical College and she was a hosteler at the Ladies Hostel known as 'Cauvery', run by the said College. Late Suchithra was allotted a room and she was in occupation of the same along with another student by name Miss.Nivedita. She was doing her final year in 1990-1991. On the fateful day, that was on 6.11.1990, at about 3 A.M., her room-mate Nivedita went to bathroom, of course, leaving the door open. Some miscreants attacked Nivedita in the bathroom and thereafter, they entered Room No.28, where Suchitra was sleeping. After attacking her, they left, taking away two gold bangles belonging to her and a gold chain, belonging to Nivedita. Suchithra succumbed to the injuries, of course, after a few days, that was on 13.11.1990, while Nivedita and another girl, who sustained injuries, luckily survived. The case was originally investigated by the local police and, thereafter, transferred to C.I.D. (Crimes), Madras. In spite of the investigation by the said special Police, nothing has been detected.
2. The respondent/writ petitioner, contending that the appellants are guilty of negligence and that they are liable to pay compensation, filed Writ Petition No.20211 of 1993, praying the Court to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents (appellants herein) to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- legally due and payable by them as compensation for the death of her daughter that had occurred on 13.11.1990 due to the lack of security at the Hostel and the negligence of the respondents and further directing them to expedite the investigation and bring the actual culprits to book.
3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the respondent/writ petitioner pleaded that coming from a middle class family, she had spent a huge amount in educating her daughter with fond hopes that she would eventually emerge as a fully qualified Doctor with bright future. She had implicitly trusted the appellants with the safety of the child. The appellants, refused to pay heed to the repeated requests of the students asking for enhancement of the security, in spite of collecting the fees and other charges. A further plea has also been raised that the appellants are guilty of total negligence in not providing adequate security arrangements. According to the respondent, in the facts and circumstances of the case, she must be paid at least a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of compensation for the death of her daughter, which occurred on 13.11.1990.
4. The Deputy Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, filed a counter affidavit, contending that the miscreants entered the room of Miss.Suchithra since it was found open and, had she locked the room from inside, as soon as her room-mate Nivedita left the room, the tragedy would not have happened. Ever since 1962, when the hostels were started, there has been no such complaint of trespassing or even petty thefts occurring in the hostels. A watchman is posted to every hostel and they are on duty round the clock. Hence, it could not be concluded that there was security lapse, which caused the tragedy and that this had happened not due to the carelessness and negligence on the part of the appellants. On the other hand, the occurrence took place only because of the negligence on the part of the deceased and her room-mate Nivedita. However, at the request of the students, the security arrangements have been further tightened. In fact, adequate security arrangements have been provided even though no amount was collected separately, while collecting college fees and hostels fees, towards security charges. The appellants herein, in the counter affidavit filed, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. The learned single Judge found that the occurrence took place due to the negligence and carelessness on the part of the authorities, particularly the hostel authorities, in which the respondent/writ petitioner's lost her daughter, who was studying final year in the Thanjavur Medical College. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the respondent/writ petitioner is entitled for adequate compensation for the unfortunate death of her daughter at the hands of some miscreants while she was staying in the hostel. Taking into consideration the facts that at the relevant time, the respondent was 43 years old and that the deceased was the only daughter of hers, who was doing her final year in the Medical College, the learned single Judge fixed the compensation payable at Rs.5,00,000/-. Earlier, the learned single Judge found no substance in the contention that no separate amount was collected towards security charges and whatever amount collected was for boarding and lodging.
6. The present Writ Appeal has been directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 08.10.2001.
7. This is really a very unfortunate case. The respondent looked after her only daughter well and obviously gave her good education and this is evident from the fact that deceased Suchithra was able to get admission in a Medical College in the merit quota. She was admitted in Thanjavur Medical College and the respondent had opted to put her in the Hostel in her best interests. During the year 1989-1990, she was in the final year, occupying Room No.28 along with another student by name Nivedita. On 6.11.1990, at about 3 A.M., Nivedita left the room to go to bathroom, obviously leaving the door open. Some anti-social elements attacked Nivedita in the bath-room and then entered Room No.28, where they attacked Suchithra. Before leaving, they could lay their hands on some gold ornaments.
8. In an endeavour to demonstrate that the order of the learned single Judge has to be interfered with, the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the State, put forth various submissions, which can be set out as under:-
(a) When Nivedita left the room, had Suchithra bolted from inside, it would not have been possible for the miscreants to attack her, and hence, the negligence is solely on the part of the deceased and not on the appellants.
(b) Necessary safety arrangements have been provided in the Hostel and, in fact, since 1962 there was not even a single untoward incident even of minor in nature and security has been provided even though no separate amount is charged from the students under the head 'expenses for security arrangements'.
(c) Since the claim of the respondent that there were no proper security arrangements for the inmates of the Hostel has been disputed categorically, the respondent would not be entitled for any relief in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and their remedy is to go before Civil Court, establish the negligence pleaded by them and then claim compensation.
9. As far as the first submission is concerned, we do not understand as to how it can be said that the incident took place only because of the negligence on the part of the deceased. When there are two inmates in a room and one inmate goes to Toilet to answer the calls of nature, obviously, she would leave the room open and it cannot be expected that every time, whenever one of the occupants of the room goes out to answer the calls of nature, she should woke up the other room-mate, even in the middle of night, asking the latter to bolt the door from inside. This contention is totally devoid of merits.
10. The other two contentions can be taken up together.
The question is, whether there was negligence on the part of the appellants, particularly the hostel authorities, in providing necessary security arrangements for the inmates of the hostel for the Girl students, studying in the Medical college. If the authorities dispute the claim of negligence on their part and set out the various steps taken by them to provide security arrangements, then, the Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may not be in a position to give a factual finding as to whether there was any negligence on the part of the hostel authorities. In such a case, finding has to be rendered on the basis of the evidence, may be, both oral and documentary, which should mean that such a factual finding can be arrived at only by a civil court before which both the parties will let in oral and documentary evidence. But there may be a case, where, in the given circumstances, the Court may be able to come to a conclusion without any hesitation whatsoever, even on the basis of the pleadings, that there was negligence on the part of the authorities. This may be either because the authorities may not have anything to set out as to what are the safeguards they have taken to provide security arrangements or it may be that the steps taken may be alarmingly inadequate.
11. We would like to refer to two rulings before we proceed to examine the claim of the respective parties.
(i) In U.P.State Coop. Land Development Bank Ltd., v. Chandra Bhan Dubey, , the Court ruled that the language of
Article 226 of the Constitution does not admit of any limitation on the powers of the High Court for the exercise of jurisdiction thereunder. To quote the exact wordings from the said judgment,
"... The Constitution is not a statute. It is a fountainhead of all the statutes. When the language of Article 226 is clear, we cannot put shackles on the High Courts to limit their jurisdiction by putting an interpretation on the words which would limit their jurisdiction. When any citizen or person is wronged, the High Court will step in to protect him, be that wrong be done by the State, an instrumentality of the State, ........ But then the power conferred upon the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution is so vast, this Court has laid down certain guidelines and self-imposed limitations have been put there subject to which the High Courts would exercise jurisdiction, but those guidelines cannot be mandatory in all circumstances. ..."
(ii) In yet another ruling (Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board v. Sumathi and others), the Court pointed out that when there is negligence on the face of it, it cannot be said that there will be any bar to proceed with Article 226 of Constitution of India. The Supreme Court observed as under,
"In view of the clear proposition of law laid by this Court in Sukamani Das case when a disputed question of fact arises and there is clear denial of any tortious liability remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution may not be proper. However, it cannot be understood as laying a law that in every case of tortious liability recourse must be had to a suit. When there is negligence on the face of it and infringement of Article 21 is there it cannot be said that there will be any bar to proceed under Article 226 of the Constitution."
12. Now, the endeavour of the Court is to find out, whether the plea of the hostel authorities that they have provided adequate security arrangements and there was no negligence on their part can be accepted?
13. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is pleaded that prior to the incident there were no security arrangements and thereafter the students demanded construction of a compound wall for separating the college hostel campus from that of the hospital, illumination facilities, erection of grills for the corridors of the hostel verandahs etc. Most of these demands were given effect to which would reveal that the college campus and the hostel premises suffered from lack of security all through.
14. In the counter-affidavit, the appellant's denied the plea that there was inadequate security arrangements and that there was negligence on the part of the hostel authorities. The counter affidavit further proceeds to state as under:-
" A watchman is also posted to every hostel and they are on duty round the clock. Hence, it could be concluded that there is no security lapse that caused this tragedy and that this had happened due to the carelessness and negligence of the deceased student and her room-mate. However, at the request of the students, the hostels have been separated from other buildings by providing compound wall and raising the existing level of the walls. G.I. Grills have also been provided on all the verandahs of Ladies hostel and security arrangements tightened. The above said works have been done to tighten the security in the ladies hostel and it does not mean that there was lapse in security arrangements in the ladies' hostel before that as contended by the petitioner."
15. From what has been stated in the counter affidavit, several things are clear,
(i) Prior to the incident, there was a watchman in each hostel and that facility was there round the clock;
(ii) Before the incident, there was no compound wall for the hostel separating it from other buildings viz., other hostels (for Men), college etc.
(iii) After the incident, when students made a demand, compound wall was constructed and G.I. Grills have been provided on all the verandahs.
16. When there are several hostels, a college, hospital etc., in a large area, and to which anyone can have an easy entry at any time in a day merely providing a watchman for the hostel, cannot be, by any standards, accepted as providing sufficient security arrangement. It is elementary that when compared to the Hostels meant for boys, the girls' Hostel should have more security arrangement and which should include providing G.I. Grills on the verandah, so that no one can gain entry easily once the main entrance is locked. Posting a watchman to a hostel that too for a girls' Hostel cannot be accepted as providing proper security arrangement and this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the hostel authorities. Once this Court comes to such conclusion, then, there will be no difficulty in holding that the hostel authorities are liable to compensate.
17. The next question is, whether, even though the hostel authorities are not collecting any separate fee from the students for providing security arrangements, the appellants are liable to pay the compensation?
Our answer is an emphatic 'Yes'. The parents, while admitting their children, be it a boy or a girl, do so with the fond hope that their wards will be properly looked after. The hostel run by the Thanjavur Medical College is not a commercial establishment. It is the bounden duty of the hostel authorities to take every reasonable, possible and necessary step in providing security arrangements. They have to be more careful and vigilant when they take the responsibilities of providing boarding and lodging for the girl students. In fact, this Court is surprised with the stand taken by the appellants in the counter affidavit filed in the Writ Petition to the effect that they are not responsible since no separate amount was collected under the head 'for security arrangements'.
18. Learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the appellants, also contended that the award of Rs.5,00,000/- is, in any way, on the higher side. We do not think so. Deceased Suchithra was a bright student and got her entry in the Medical College in merit quota. At the relevant time, she was in the final year. She was the only daughter of her parents and one could imagine very well the fond and high hopes which the parents would have in their mind. Had she survived, certainly, it could be expected that she would have helped the parents in several ways including financially. The respondent comes from a middle class and her husband was, at the relevant time, working in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the award of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation by the learned single Judge is on the higher side.
19. There are no merits in the Writ Appeal. Consequently, the same is dismissed.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 14 October 2011
If this is the case you are looking for:
Nandakumar vs State By Sub Inspector Of Police on 25 January, 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25/01/2006
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
Criminal Appeal No.917 of 2003
Nandakumar .. Appellant
-Vs-
State by Sub Inspector of Police
Appakoodal Police Station
Erode District.
(Crime No.65 of 2002) .. Respondent
This criminal appeal is preferred under Sec.374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bhavani, Erode District in S.C.No.162 of 2002 dated 09.05.2003.
For Appellant : Mr. V.K. Muthusamy, Sr.Counsel
for Mr. M.M. Sundaresh
For Respondent : Mr. V.M.R. Rajendran
Additional Public Prosecutor
..
THEN IT IS AVAILABLE ON ::
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1016292/
