MANGALA HANTAL AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Koraput-Jeypore in M.A. No. 03 of 2002 modifying the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Koraput in M.S. No. 50 of 2000.

(2.) The appellants as the plaintiffs being the parents of the deceased had filed the suit claiming compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs on account of unnatural and untimely death of their deceased male child reading in the primary school The respondent i.e., State of Odisha with a view to reduce high rate of school drop outs among the tribal children had opened the residential primary school at Kularsingh a remote Adivasi hamlet in the district of Koraput providing all other facilities to the children. On 19.11.1997, a Video show was organized by some villagers at Kularsingh with the consent of the School Authority. Fourteen boarders including deceased child of the appellants went to watch the said show. When such show was going on, they felt uneasy. So, instead of going to the hostel, they slept in a nearby room of the school, where the organizers of the Video show had placed a generator run by kerosene. The door and windows of that room were closed. So, carbon monoxide emanating on account of said run of the generator engulfed rooms and out of suffocation eight boarders including the male child of the plaintiffs died when six others luckily survived. The allegation is that the tragic incident was on account of negligence of teacher-in-charge of the hostel and had the teacher-in-charge remained present or at least guided those boarders back to the hostel from the Video show, the incident could have been well avoided or prevented. So, the suit was filed attributing vicarious liability to the State for such negligence act on the part of its employees. The defendant-State denying such vicarious liability came out with a case that the boarders had gone out of the hostel on their own volition to witness Video show and had slept in the room earmarked for the hostel. It is stated that the State Government had provided financial help as an ex-gratia measure to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) to each of the bereaved family of such deceased boarders.

(3.) The trial court framing necessary issues finally answered those in favour of the plaintiffs holding the State to be vicariously liable to pay the compensation amount on account of death of the child as the said incident took place on account of negligence of the school and hostel authority. In view of that, the trial court awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) to be paid to the appellants by the State within two months and in case of default, interest @ of Rs. 12% per annum from the date of decree was ordered to run. The State being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree preferred an appeal. The appellate court concurred with all the findings of the trial court including the quantum of compensation as awarded. But finally it passed an order reducing the payment of said compensation by Rs. 30,000/- as already paid as ex-gratia. It may be stated here that these appellants had neither filed any cross-appeal nor cross-objection challenging quantum of award of compensation as determined by the trial court. So, now, in this appeal their grievance centres round simply on this score of reduction of payment of the compensation in the appeal and now their claim is confined to the entitlement of the compensation as awarded by the trial court i.e. the ex-gratia payment is liable to be considered in the matter of grant of compensation in the suit.