Orissa HC Orders Rs 10 Lakhs Compensation For Minor’s Death After Wall Collapse In Govt Primary School

It is definitely in the fitness of things that while taking a courageous stand, the Orissa High Court at Cuttack in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Sania Pradhan @ Sanyasi Pradhan & Anr vs State of Odisha & Ors in W.P.(C) No.12427 of 2017 and cited in 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 51 that was finally heard on 15.04.2024 and then finally pronounced on 25.04.2024 has gone to the extent of ordering the State to pay Rs 10 lakhs compensation to the parents of a minor boy who succumbed to injuries sustained after a toilet wall collapsed inside the school campus even though the parents demanded just Rs 5 lakhs only. Interestingly enough, we see that the Orissa High Court has also ordered infrastructure safety audits in schools across all the districts in the State. It must be noted here that while providing relief to the bereaved petitioners/parents, the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Dr Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi while taking potshots at the management of the school minced just no words to observe unequivocally that, “…it is evident that the collapse of the toilet building wall on the fateful day was due to sheer negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties/State, who are duty bound to maintain the Project Upper Primary School, Ranikiari building and its surrounding in a proper manner. The safety of the children cannot be taken so lightly by the School authority.” Very rightly so! It definitely merits just no reiteration that all steps must be taken by the school authorities to always ensure foremost that the safety of the children is not compromised in any manner. There can be definitely just no denying or disputing it!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Dr Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi of Orissa High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “In this Writ Petition, the Petitioners seek a direction from this Court to the Opposite Parties/State to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) towards compensation for death of their son Kunal Pradhan inside the campus of Project Upper Primary School, Ranikiari in the district of Ganjam due to falling of latrine wall of the school.”

FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating briefly on the facts of the case that, “The brief fact of the case as presented by the Parties during the course of argument and on the basis of material placed on record:

(i) The Petitioner No.1 is a farmer and Petitioner No.2 is the wife of the Petitioner No.1. They blessed with a son named Kunal Pradhan, who was studying in Class-II in the Project Upper Primary School, Ranikiari of the district of Ganjam.

(ii) The son of the Petitioners had attended the School on 24.09.2016. After the School Classes were over he was playing with his friends inside the School premises. All of a sudden, the old latrine wall of the School fell down on him and he was trapped under the collapsed wall. As a result, he sustained severe injury on his head and body. After hearing the same, the Petitioner No.2 rushed to the School and shifted him to Bhanjanagar Hospital for his treatment. Due to his critical condition, he was referred to M.K.C.G. Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur. But, the son of the Petitioners died on the way to Berhampur. The doctor declared him dead.

(iii) The Petitioner No.1 had reported the same before the I.I.C., Tarasing Police Station. The same was registered as Tarasing P.S. Case No.4 of 2016. Pursuant to the direction of the I.I.C., Tarasingh Police Station, the I.O. held the inquest over the dead body of the deceased and postmortem was conducted by the Doctor.

(iv) The I.O. filed final report before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhanjanagar on 26.09.2016 declaring that the death of deceased Kunal Pradhan was due to falling of wall inside the School campus of the Project Upper Primary School, Ranikiari.

(v) After death of their son, the Petitioners approached the Opposite Party No.4/District Education Officer, Ganjam through the Opposite Party No.5/Headmaster, P.U.P. School, Ranikiari and Block Education Officer, Bhanjanager for payment of compensation on 18.11.2016.

(vi) However, the Opposite Parties/State are not disbursing compensation with a plea that the Notification dated 01.06.2016 of the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Government of Odisha does not stipulate for payment of compensation for death due to falling of wall.

(vii) Therefore, the Petitioners are constrained to approach this Court with a prayer to direct the Opposite Parties to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/(Rupees Five Lakh only) to them.”

COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

As we see, the Bench specifies in para 6 that, “Admittedly, eight year old boy named Kunal Pradhan, who was the only son of the Petitioners, died inside the campus of the Project Upper Primary School, Ranikiari in the district of Ganjam by falling of an old toilet wall of the School. Initially, he was admitted in Bhanjanagar SubDivisional Medical Centre for treatment. But, due to his critical condition, he was referred to M.K.C.G. Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur. On the way to Berhampur, the deceased child Kunal Pradhan died on 24.09.2016.”

As it turned out, the Bench then enunciates in para 7 stating that, “Thus, it is evident that the collapse of the toilet building wall on the fateful day was due to sheer negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties/State, who are duty bound to maintain the Project Upper Primary School, Ranikiari building and its surrounding in a proper manner. The safety of the children cannot be taken so lightly by the School authority.”

Most remarkably, the Bench propounds in para 10 that, “In this case, though the State functionaries have taken the prompt steps for payment of ex-gratia grant in favour of the mother of the deceased child, but they did not take any precautionary step to avoid such untoward incident. Therefore, a clear case for grant of a decent compensation is made out instead of ex-gratia grant. The Compensatory Jurisprudence aims at providing compensation to victims of harm typically due to wrongly acts such as negligence, breach of contract or criminal offences seeking restoration of the original position before the harm occurred by awarding monetary damages or other forms of restitution. Though in the present case the original position cannot be restored. However, the victim’s right to be compensated for losses- including physical injury, emotional distress and financial damages can at least be awarded. The evolution of human rights law and the recognition of victims’ rights have further propelled the development of compensatory jurisprudence, making it an integral part of the justice delivery system. By ensuring that victims receive adequate compensation, we can move towards a more just and compassionate legal system that truly addresses the needs of those who have suffered harm like the parents in the present case.”

As a corollary, the Bench directs in para 11 that, “In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to entertain the prayer of the Petitioners. Accordingly, the State authority is directed to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs) in addition to the ex-gratia amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) already declared by the District Education Officer.”

Most significantly, the Bench mandates in para 12 directing that, “However, in order to ensure the safety of the students in Primary Schools, Upper Primary Schools and High Schools, it is ordered that:

(i) A District Education Infrastructure Safety Audit Committee has to be formed in each district headed by the District Magistrate and Collector along with the members like District Education Officer and Block Education Officer (s), Executive Engineer of Works Department and/or R.D. and P.W.D. Departments, Executive Officer of Municipality and/or NAC, Block Development Officer(s) and some of the selected members/Headmasters of some High Schools and Head Pandits of some of the Primary Schools and Upper Primary Schools.

(ii) Such Committee shall ensure the safety audit of each and every Schools of the district and issue Safety Certificate to the School Authority every year in the month of June.

(iii) The District Education Infrastructure Safety Audit Committee shall meet at least twice a year. The Committee will form Sub-Committee of Engineers pertaining to the Departments of R.D and P.W.D. and ensure safety audit of the school infrastructures which shall recommend for issuance of Safety Certificate to the School Authority. There shall be a grievance redressal mechanism under the aegis of District Education Infrastructure Safety Audit Committee at every block level.

(iv) It is the duty of the School Headmaster of every School to report to the concerned B.D.O. regarding unsafe wall and scrub up any school building and the B.D.O. shall immediately take up the issue before the District Education Infrastructure Safety Audit Committee so that the issue can be resolved at the earliest possible. The District Magistrate and Collector shall be the monitoring authority for the safety of the children to prevent such kind of mishap in School Campuses.

(v) The School Headmaster and the Block Education Officer will be held responsible for any kind of mishap due to falling of wall or roof.

(vi) The School and Mass Education Department shall have a Disaster Management Team to mitigate any kind of disaster in the form of falling of wall, fire or any other kind of calamity faced by the Schools.”

It is worth noting that the Bench then directs in para 13 that, “The Government has the liberty to improvise the guidelines issued above or issue a detailed guidelines incorporating some more points since the afore-stated guidelines are only indicative for mitigating the future mishap. A comprehensive affidavit to be filed by the Secretary, Department of School and Mass Education, Government of Odisha after notifying the aforementioned directives to all the districts of the State. The said exercise shall be completed within three months from today.”

In addition, the Bench directs in para 14 holding that, “Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of being allowed.”

Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing in para 15 that, “Urgent certified copy of this judgment be issued to the Petitioner and a free copy of the same be handed over to the learned counsel for the State.”

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.