PATHI VENKATA NARAYANA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is hails from a poor BPL (Below Poverty Line) family and he is working as daily wage agricultural labour. He has two sons namely Vishnu Vardhan and Mahendar. Whereas his elder son namely Vishnu Vardhan aged about 11 years and he is studying 4th class at Sri Vivekananda Vidya Peetam High School, Markapur. On 29/8/2021, which happens to be a public holiday, petitioner's elder son i.e., Vishnu Vardhan along with other children were playing at the Mandal Parishad Primary School building which is in a dilapidated condition, suddenly, beams and walls of the school building were collapsed and fell on the chest, stomach and body of the petitioner's son. Due to forcible fall of the beams and walls upon the son of the petitioner, he lost his breath and died on the spot. On the same day, the petitioner gave a report to the SubInspector of Police, Markapur, Rural Police Station about the death of his son caused due to accidental fall of beams, walls and roof. Accordingly police registered a case in Crime No.169/2021 under Sec. 174 Cr.P.C.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner states that due to the negligence on the part of the respondents in keeping the dilapidated building as it is, the son of the petitioner, who was playing on 29/8/2021, which is being holiday at the subject school premises which is in a dilapidated condition and due to sudden collapse of the building, the son of the petitioner succumbed to death on the spot. He further submits that it is the statutory duty of the respondents, once the subject building is in dilapidated condition it should be demolished immediately and it cannot be continued to prevent untoward incidents, but negligently and due to dereliction of duties, such a severe dilapidated building was continued as it is, even after having an assessment and report it is in severe dilapidated condition. Therefore, the respondents are liable for the death of the son of the petitioner due to negligence and dereliction of duties, as per the principle of vicarious liability. Further, it is stated that though the petitioner submitted his representations and requests but reasons best known to the respondents neither responded as usual for payment of the compensation nor replied to the claim of petitioner. He further states that even after lapse of two years period having received the representations, but respondent authorities neither acted upon in redressal of grievance of the petitioner nor paid any compensation. Hence, the present Writ Petition.