Madras High Court upholds order of Rs 10 lakh compensation to student's kin
Chennai: The Madras high court has upheld an order of a single judge, awarding a compensation of Rs 10 lakh for the death of a student in Adi Dravida Welfare Hostel (ITI) in Kancheepuram district, which was neither managed properly by the warden nor did it have proper security measures required to take care of students.
A division bench comprising Justices R. Sudhakar and S. Vaidyanathan dismissed an appeal filed by the state government, challenging the order of a single judge dated Nov. 24, 2011.
Originally, K. Saminathan filed a petition seeking a compensation of '15 lakh for the death of his only son. According to Saminathan, his son, who was doing first year ITI at Kamatchi Industrial Training institute, Sekkupettai, was staying at Adi Dravidar Welfare Hostel at Kayarkulam.
On October 1, 2010, his son was found murdered and after investigation, a case was registered against a student also staying in the hostel. Due to the callous attitude on the part of authorities, the security in the hostel came to be compromised resulting in the death of his only son and therefore, he claimed compensation, he added. Allowing the petition, a single judge had awarded Rs 10 lakh as compensation. Aggrieved, the state government filed the present appeal.
The bench said it was not in dispute that the hostel, where the incident took place, was meant for SC/ST students. On the question of vicarious liability, the single judge has clearly held that no watchman was appointed by the authorities to look after security of students staying at the hostel. Further, it has also been found that the warden, a local, was the parent of one of the inmates of the hostel and in such circumstances, the single judge held that in case of anything happening on hostel premises, the warden/officials alone can be held responsible. The bench said the hostel was primarily intended for SC/ST students, who come from very oppressed strata of society. It was the paramount duty of any welfare state, to provide security to the oppressed class.
Therefore, it was the duty of the government to provide all the necessary facilities, infrastructure as well as security for the students staying in the hostel. In the absence of providing any security, much less adequate security, the appellants (authorities) cannot shirk away from their responsibility by merely stating that vicarious liability cannot be fixed on them.
As rightly held by the single judge, the appellants were vicariously liable to pay compensation to Saminathan, more so when the occurrence had taken place within the hostel premises, the bench added.
