IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 844 OF 2001 BETWEEN: Vuppala Kishan and another …APPELLANTS AND Nagarjuna Residential High School, Vijayapuri South, Nagarjuna Sagar, represented by its Correspondent and others …RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 844 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: The plaintiffs in O.S.No. 26 of 1998 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, are the appellants herein. 2. The suit was filed recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased Vuppala Ramakrishna, due to the negligence of the defendants. 3. The allegations in the plaint go to show that the plaintiffs are the parents of deceased Vuppala Ramakrishna, aged 13 years and was studying 8th class during the year, 1994-95 in the school of the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is the Correspondent and Head Mistress of the said school. The deceased was admitted in the year, 1992-93 in 6th class in the hostel. On 27.11.1994 the plaintiffs came to know that their son was serious and hospitalised at Nagarjuna Sagar and they went to the hospital, where they were informed that the deceased died due to the accidental drowning in the Nagarjuna Sagar Reservoir waters. According to the case of the plaintiffs, the children were taken on picnic from the school. It was further stated by them that when the dead body was seen, marks of violence were found on the chest and that the death was not due to accidental drowning. The son of the plaintiffs knew swimming. The deceased was threatened by the Teachers and others and they also insisted the 1st plaintiff to sign on some papers and also school records as if the deceased was taken by him prior to the incident. A sum of Rs.50,000/- was also offered as compromise. There was a suspicion about the death of the deceased and he lodged a complaint to the police at Nagarjuna Sagar and the 2nd defendant being influential, no action was taken. The place where the deceased was said to have drowned in the water was very shallow place and the water level is not even ankle deep and there are boulders. Therefore, the cause of death of drowning pleaded by the 2nd defendant is false and unbelievable. The deceased was unable to bear the harassment ran away from the school on 08.09.1994 and went to the house of one Ramakrishna, who again left the deceased in the school. The deceased also wrote a letter and again on 27.11.1994 left the school. As the defendants are influential, the police also did not take any action. The plaintiffs also filed Writ Petition No.30805 of 1997 for an enquiry by Central Bureau of Investigation. The untimely death of the deceased has caused agony and sufferance to the plaintiffs and therefore, the suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. 4. The 1st defendant filed a written statement denying most of the allegations in the plaint and the motive attributed to them. The allegation that the death was a suspicious one is also denied. The school was being run with reputation and without any complaint. On 27.11.1994 the Teachers planned to take the school children to Sagar Matha Church of Nagarjuna Sagar and at about 8.30 A.M., they were taken to the Church and the children were given lunch at about 1.30 P.M. After the lunch, it was informed by one Teacher that the deceased was drowned in the Reservoir behind the Church. Thereafter, the 1st defendant went and the dead body was taken to the hospital. The defendants claimed that the deceased went to attend calls of nature, slipped and fell into reservoir. This fact was informed to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs demanded money. The police also investigated that it is an accidental fall and no criminal responsibility can be fixed on the defendants. There is no cause of action to file this suit. The suit is barred by time. Therefore, the defendants pleaded for the dismissal of the suit. The 3rd defendant also filed his written statement on the same lines as that of the 1st defendant. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the trial court, for trial: 1) Whether suit is barred by limitation? 2) Whether the plaintiff’s son Vuppala Rama Krishna was due to Vismayor? 3) Whether the defendants are liable to pay compensation as claimed by the plaintiffs? 4) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the compensation as prayed for? 5) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the plaintiffs, PW.1 was examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-15. On behalf of the defendants, DWs.1 to 5 were examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-4. 7. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed. 8. The points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the claim of the plaintiffs is sustainable and whether the plaintiffs are entitled for any compensation? 2) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, is legal and sustainable? 3) To what relief? 9. POINTS: There is no dispute about the fact that the deceased was son of the plaintiffs and was studying in the school of the 1st defendant. It is also not in dispute that on 27.11.1994 the children were taken to a picnic and where the deceased died. It is to be noted that the entire effort of the plaintiffs from the allegations made in the plaint go to show as if the deceased was beaten and killed and it was not a case of accidental death or a case of negligence attributable to the defendants. In fact, the basis most of the allegations made in the plaint reflect that due to the harassment of the defendants, the deceased has left the school once or twice and also has written some letters and therefore, the plaintiffs suspect that the deceased was killed. 10. Evidently, to substantiate these allegations, there is no independent evidence. It can only be stated that the said allegations made against the defendants by the plaintiff are unwarranted and also beyond the truth and reckless allegations. Everybody has got a sympathy for the death of the deceased, who is the son of the plaintiffs. But, at the same time, the allegations made by the plaintiffs that the deceased was ill-treated, beaten and that there was no scope for drowning and that there were some injuries on the person of the deceased are violent allegations, which will not convince the Court to extend sympathies to the plaintiffs even in cases of unfortunate death. The Post Mortem Report and the investigation done by the police clearly go to show that the death of the deceased was due to drowning. In fact, even if the child is mischievous or not to the liking of the management, there is nothing for the management to take him and kill him since he can be removed from the school at any point of time. The personal vengeance sought to be pursued against the management by the plaintiffs without any material and an effort to prosecute the school management by Central Bureau of Investigation probe or other police investigation only discloses that the conduct of the plaintiffs is not fair. 11. In fact, the case was not based on grounds of negligence or lack of care on the part of the defendants. On careful reading of the evidence of the plaintiffs and also the allegations in the plaint go to show as if it is a case of intentional killing of the deceased boy. But, however, the plea taken by the defendants and also the evidence on record clearly goes to show that it is a case where the unfortunate death of the deceased was due to the lack of care on the part of the management. Evidently, the children were taken to the picnic and even if the deceased was allowed to go to calls of nature along with others, still the management should have known that sending to the reservoir with water is dangerous. Furthermore, the attitude of the children to enter into the waters when they go near it is also to be expected and steps shall be taken for prevention. Evidently, in this case, the children were allowed to go to the reservoir and when the deceased is said to have been drowned, it can only be when the deceased went inside and therefore, at that stage, the standard of care of the management is required and it has failed. Somebody should check the children, who have gone to answer the calls of nature and shall not allow them to go deep into the waters, which is likely would cause the incident of this nature. Therefore, it is not a case of act of God as sought to be contended by the counsel for the defendants and accepted by the lower Court. It is the case where the school management has lacked care and is a clear case of negligence. The contention that when the children went for answering calls of nature, the prevention is not possible cannot be accepted. Merely because after the incident somebody has gone into the waters and brought out the dead body also not a circumstance in favour of the defendants. In fact, considering the negligence of a Teacher, the duty of care expected of the Teacher is that of a parent. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellants relied on a decision reported in M.S. Grewal and another Vs. Deep Chand Sood and others[1], wherein circumstances similar to this case, it was held that when minor children were sent out by school for a picnic at a place near a river, there is higher degree of duty of care and the liability in case of failure is absolute. Therefore, taking into consideration the above decision and the available material taken but be said that the death of the deceased was due to negligence and lack of care and the above decision applies to the facts of this case also. There cannot be any plea of act of God or any possibility of the deceased himself drowned due to the difficulties with the studies in the school. 12. The next question for consideration is whether the suit is barred by time. In fact, the learned Senior Civil Judge by taking aid of Article 72 of the Limitation Act, came to the conclusion that it is barred by time. But, evidently, Article 72 of the Limitation Act, has no application to the facts of this case and the suit is not filed against any authority for compensation for failure to do an act or omission in pursuance of an enactment. 13. In this case, the defendants are not officials acting under any particular statute. Even if they get recognition and the management will follow the regulations, still Article 72 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied, it is only an Article 113 of the Limitation Act, which is applicable and in this case. The decision reported in State of A.P. Vs. Challa Ramkrishana Reddy and others[2], which is relied on by the counsel for the appellant is relevant. 14. So far the claim for compensation is concerned, evidently the deceased boy was said to be aged about 13 years, the plaintiffs have got another son and the plaintiffs have got business. There is no dependency on the deceased except the loss of love and affection. In fact, the plaintiffs also have not come to the Court with clean hands and a presentation of the case is also not fair. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts, I feel the ends of justice would meet if a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- is granted to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, points are answered. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, is set aside and the plaintiffs found entitled for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation from the 1st defendant with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation. The plaintiffs are entitled to proportionate costs in the lower Court. Each party shall bear their own costs in the appeal. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 21-03-2011. INL [1] (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 151 [2] (2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 712