Madras HC orders Rs 25 lakh compensation to student who lost eyesight

The Madras High Court today ordered Rs 25 lakh compensation to a boy who lost his eyesight when a classmate threw a stone at him in the school, holding that the authorities had the duty to look after children in schools.

Rejecting the private school's argument that fights among students in the class was a thing beyond its control, the court said it was the duty of the authorities to take care of children after parents leave them in school.

Passing orders on a petition filed by the boy's mother, K Ranjees Mary, Justice M V Muralidharan said but for the negligence in the discharge of duty, the boy would not have lost his eyesight.

The student, R Remish Fedlin, of the school in Kanyakumari district, was injured in the eye when his classmate threw a stone at him during special class in May 2010.

The Tamil Nadu government too has failed to take action against the school authorities after the incident was reported, the judge said.

Justice Muralidharan of the Madurai bench also rejected the contention that the petition was filed to extort money and said the FIR itself was filed 18 months after the incident.

"The authorities owe a duty to provide security to the children to prevent chances of injury. In this case, the authorities did not perform their duty," he said.

The judge said the money may not be adequate but it would provide a sense of justice and security when dealing with treatment cost.

Also, it would provide comfort for the parent for being able to take care of the child's recovery, the judge added.

He ordered the compensation to be paid within four weeks by the five respondents, including Secretary, Education department, chief education and district education officers of Kanyakumari, and correspondent and headmaster of the private school.

The judge said the petitioner had made several pleas to the school authorities to help her provide treatment for her son, but they had ignored them.

Justice Muralidhran rejected the plea of the government advocate that the school authorities had conducted special classes against the government order, and as the incident took place during the special class, the government was not responsible.