The Principal Kiddie Koop High School Mandi Bazar, Warangal Vs. Jannu Vivek and Another - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Judgment:

ORAL ORDER: (Per Honble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President.)

1) This is an appeal preferred by Opposite Party No. 1 Principal of Kiddie Koop High School against the order of the Dist. Forum directing the school to pay Rs. 3 lakhs with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing the complaint viz., 5.3.2005 till the date of realization together with costs of Rs. 500/-.

2) The case of the complainant in brief is that his son a minor Jannu Vivek was a student of R1 school. He joined in the year 2000. He was studying 6^th class in 2003. While so, on 15.7.2003 at about 3.00 p.m. when he was in the class room R2 Sri Someshwar a teacher of Social Studies beat the boy mercilessly and due to which he was bleeding from the left eye. Immediately after coming to know, his mother went to the school and complained. Neither R1 nor R2 took responsibility by referring him to any hospital or for any medical aid. They behaved negligently. She took the boy to a local ophthalmologist who in turn, without giving any medical aid referred him to L.V. Prasad Eye Institute, due to gravity of injury informing that the injury was serious in nature requiring treatment with advanced technology. Immediately they took him to the said eye hospital on 16.7.2003 in the early hours. Operation was conducted thrice for getting the eye sight, however it did not yield any result. Consequently he lost the eye sight. He spent about Rs. 90,000/- towards treatment, medicines including transportation and accommodation. When the matter was reported to the police the respondents with the support of political stalwarts hailing from Warangal settled the matter at Rs. 5 lakhs which finds a place in the records of the police under the name and style of ‘Sannihitha Register at relevant page No. 66 dt, 31.7.2003. However, an amount of Rs. 28,000/- was paid with a promise that they would pay the remaining amount within a short time. He did not suspect their bonafides in view of the promise made by them. However, when he sought for payment of amount he was abused. Therefore after issuing legal notice he filed the complaint claiming compensation of Rs. 4,72,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a., towards permanent disability together with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and costs of Rs. 5,000/-.

3) R1 Principal of the school resisted the case. While denying each and every allegation made in the complaint, however he admitted that Jannu Vivek a minor boy and was its student. At no point of time any of the teachers beat the boy resulting injury to the left eye. They were not aware that the boy was taken to L.V. Prasad Eye Institute where three operations were conducted and that he had lost vision. Even before admission he was suffering from eye problem and was frequently being taken to the hospitals. Taking advantage of the problem in the eye the complainant filed the complaint as a sort of black mail and intends to recover the amount. In fact the boy was suffering from ‘Keratcoconours and non-inflammatory thinning disorder. His parents were also suffering from the same disorder. At the time of incident he was having magnifying glasses. He went to several eye hospitals. He was treated in L.V. Prasad Eye Institute and other hospitals for bio-chemical abnormality which was hereditary. For the notice given they gave reply. In the year 2003 when he was admitted into 4^th class he attended only for 3 days. When asked, his parents informed that he seriously fell ill. He left the school on his own accord. This plan was hatched with a view to get some compensation. The allegation that they agreed to settle the claim for Rs. 5 lakhs is all false. There was no reason for them to wait for two years to file the complaint had they agreed to pay the said amount. The complaint is devoid of merits and, therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

4) R2 did not choose to contest the matter and therefore he was set-exparte.

5) The complainant in proof of his case filed the affidavit evidence of his father and got Exs. A1 to A14 marked while R1 filed his affidavit evidence and did not file any documents.

6) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that no doubt the minor boy had a problem in both the eyes, however, due to the injury to the left eye, the problem was aggravated resulting in loss of vision. While considering the age of the boy and the disability being 100% awarded Rs. 3 lakhs to be paid with interest @ 7.5% from the date of complaint viz., 5.3.2005 till the date of realization together with costs of Rs. 500/-.

7) Aggrieved by the said order R1 Principal of Kiddi Koop High School preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that the complainant was suffering from eye problem in both the eyes. He had cornea problem in both eyes and has been taking treatment since September, 2000 onwards. In the medical report Ex. A14 there was no mention that there was injury. This could have been due to rubbing of eye with a finger and should have been construed accordingly. When the complainant was having inherent defect in eye sight of both the eyes and had taken treatment for the last several years the allegation that there was injury to the left eye and consequently he lost vision cannot be believed. There is no other evidence to state that R2 had beat the boy which resulted in loss of vision and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint by allowing the appeal.

8) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?

9) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant a minor boy aged 14 years studying 4^th class in the appellant school. He alleges that R2 the teacher working in the appellant school bet him causing injury to his left eye. When they took him to L.V. Prasad Eye Institute they noticed the injury, operated on him on 17.7.2003 and was discharged on 21.7.2003. From the certificates issued by L.V. Prasad Eye Institute under Ex. A7 and A8 it is evident he became totally blind.

10) A police complaint was also given on 29.7.2003, no doubt after 14 days of the incident obviously as he was undergoing treatment in the interregnum. This could not be held against the complainant on the ground that the complaint was an after thought, more so, when the medical report there was a mention that the boy had approached the institute on 16.7.2003 ‘with sudden loss of vision following the injury with finger. It is no doubt true that the complainant for the first time on 26.9.2000 approached the L.V. Prasad Eye Institute with a complaint of blurred vision. He was diagnosed to have ‘Keratoconus in both eyes with ‘blue sclera and ‘myopic astigmatism in the right eye and ‘compound myopic astigmatism in the left eye. There was ‘diminution of vision in the right eye evidenced from report Ex. A14 dt. 21.7.2003. Since the observation made by L.V. Prasad Eye Institute immediately on the next day of the incident he is decisive to find out whether he had sustained injury on his left eye, we excerpt a passage from it.

      “ He presented to us on 16.7.2003 with the complaint of sudden loss of vision in the left eye following injury with a finger. His visual acuity was counting fingers at 15 cm in the right eye and perception of right with accurate projection of rays in the left eye. Examination of the right eye revealed essentially the same findings as earlier. In the left eye, lids showed mild edema. Conjunctiva was congested. Cornea showed a curvilinear tear with iris prolapse extending from 10 O clock limbus into the papillary area ending at 8 O clock limbus. The cornea was extremely thinned out. Anterior chamber was shallow. Pupil was irregular and fixed. Lens was not visualized due to an exudative membrane in the papillary area. With an impression of corneal tear in the left eye, he was put on systemic antibiotics. He was advised to undergo corneal tear repair or possibly penetrating keratoplasty under general anaesthesia in the left eye which was performed on 17.7.2003.” (emphasis ours)

Though he was operated, he became blind on the left eye. May be he was having trouble with his eyes. The fact remains that there was an injury on the left eye and he complained of sudden loss of vision in the left eye following injury with a finger. This injury was confirmed by the doctors. But for the assault caused by the teacher such injury could not have been caused, more so, when finger had hit the eye. There cannot be any more better evidence than this. The boy had sustained injury on his left eye when he was beaten and in the process one of the fingers caused this injury which made the complainant to undergo operations and subsequent loss of eye sight. It is not as though either the appellant or any of the staff members of the school visited the hospitals to find out the nature of the injury. The complainant has also given a police report Ex. A6 dt. 29.7.2003 evidencing that there was assault by the teacher on the boy. This incident was reported in the newspapers vide Ex. A13. Though no credibility could be given to such paper reports the record filed by the complainant would undoubtedly show that he was hospitalized, underwent operation and spent amounts vide receipts Exs. A11 and A12.

11) RW1 Principal of the school filed her affidavit evidence stating “the parents of the child and some others came to the school and created nuisance in front of the school premises with false claims and the matter was referred to the police by the appellant and the police Mattewada probed into the matter, the then DSP, Warangal and the local MLA also participated in the discussion and found that there was no fault on this institution.” It was further stated that “there is no such incident of beating of the child took lace in the institution and the loss of vision was not due to the allegations levelled in the complaint.” Obviously this statement was made in order to get over the evidence from the teacher denying the fact. They dare not procure his affidavit evidence to state that he did not assault the boy. When the appellant alleges that she also gave report to the police, there is no reason why such report was not filed to substantiate that the complainant and others came with unfounded allegations. She also admits that the report made to the Police, Mattewada were probed and found that there was no fault. If that were to be true, there is no reason why the affidavit evidence of these persons and the report that was given to the police were not filed. Except denying each and every allegation the appellant did not prove any of these facts.

12) The complainant had admittedly lost his eye sight and necessarily he has to depend on others. It is 100% disability. His age being 14 years and the disability being 100% awarding Rs. 3 lakhs cannot be said to be on higher side. Even if he is construed as a non-earning member if an amount of Rs. 20,000/- i.e., if ‘15 is taken as multiplier it would come to Rs. 3 lakhs. Therefore it cannot be said that the compensation awarded by the Dist. Forum has no basis. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard. We do not see any merits in the appeal.

13) In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs computed at Rs. 5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.