Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court at Madurai Bench recently set aside an earlier decision by a single judge bench that had awarded Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation to a student who lost his right eye due to an incident at school.

The division bench comprising Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan found that the single judge had ruled without properly examining the facts or considering the need for further evidence.

"...to prove the allegations levelled in the affidavit requires some evidence. Hence, cases of this nature writ Court cannot decide the issue by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India," said the bench.

The case dates back to May 5, 2010, when Remish Fedlin, a student of St. Maria Goretty Higher Secondary School, Kanyakumari, was injured during special classes held on school premises. Remish, who was in ninth grade at the time, was struck in the eye with a stone during a scuffle with another student, Jeya Frank. Despite medical treatment, Remish permanently lost sight in his right eye. His mother, K. Renjees Mary, filed a writ petition seeking Rs. 50,00,000 as compensation, blaming the school and the Education Department of the State Government for negligence on their part.

In 2017, a single judge had ruled in favor of the petitioner and directed the Tamil Nadu government and educational authorities to pay Rs. 25,00,000 in compensation. The judgment held the school and government officials responsible for failing to prevent the incident and for conducting special classes during a holiday, in violation of a government order.

However, the Tamil Nadu government and educational officials challenged this decision before the division bench, arguing that they were not responsible for the incident, as it resulted from a personal altercation between two students. The government also contended that the single judge's judgment was reached without adequate evidence and that the officials had not been given prior notice about the case.

In its judgment, the division bench emphasized that the issues of liability and negligence required hearing with appropriate evidence, which could not be resolved in writ proceedings.

Court stated that the single judge should not have decided the matter without giving the parties an opportunity to present evidence. It noted that the nature of the injuries and the responsibility of the parties involved could only be determined through proper legal proceedings.

The bench conclusively ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the single judge’s compensation order and allowing the government’s appeal. Court, however, granted the petitioner the liberty to pursue other legal remedies in a different forum.

Case Title: TN Govt and Others v. K.Renjees Mary and Others