Civic authorities liable for death due to negligence
My 10-year-old daughter had gone on a three-day botanical tour organised by her school. On the second day of the tour, I was informed that my daughter had fallen into a manhole and by the time she was rescued, she had died. I was told that the manhole cover was badly cracked and broke when my daughter stepped on it. I want to hold the school accountable for her death. Can I file a complaint before the consumer court?
I am extremely sorry to hear about your child’s tragic death. However, I regret to say that consumer courts no longer resolve disputes pertaining to educational institutions and this includes deaths caused on account of the negligence of the school. Only recently, in response to a complaint pertaining to the death of a young boy in a swimming pool during a school summer camp, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission said it was a settled law that educational institutions do not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act and this included co-curricular activities such as swimming and even accidents during school picnics. (Rajendra Kumar Gupta vs Dr Virendra Swarup Public School, FA No 852 of 2016, date of order February 2, 2021).
I do not know the role played by the school in the rescue operations. If there was negligence there, then the school certainly needs to be hauled up. But the civic authorities need to take full responsibility for not replacing a broken manhole cover. Here too, the civic authorities would not come under the purview of the consumer courts, unless they are rendering the service for a fee.
What is my option then?
You can seek remedy in a civil court under the law of torts. Or you can invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and file a petition in the high court against the civic authorities for dereliction of duty and negligence that deprived your daughter of her fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In many such cases, the high courts have awarded compensation to the families of the victims. Courts have also taken suo motu notice of such incidents and awarded compensation. I must mention here the tragic case of an 11-year-old boy who died in similar circumstances while on a school picnic. A water harvesting pit had a broken cover and when the boy stepped on it, it crumbled into pieces, resulting in the boy falling into the pit. The Delhi High Court took suo motu cognisance of a newspaper report on the tragedy. The High Court Bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar awarded the mother of the deceased boy a compensation of Rs12,47,500, to be paid by the Public Works Department.
The court also directed the authorities to inspect all manholes, pits, ditches, etc, regularly and ensure that these do not pose any threat to the citizens. What the court said here is important: “It is, therefore, trite that for a wrong done due to breach of public duty of not protecting the rights of a citizen, the relief of monetary compensation, as exemplary damages for established infringement of the guaranteed indefeasible fundamental rights, is a remedy available in public law. Therefore, the high courts in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution have not only the power and jurisdiction, but an obligation to grant such relief to the victims or the heirs of the victims of such violation.” (Court on its own motion Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and others, Writ Petition (Civil) 12326/2015, date of order August 3, 2018). The court also quoted the Delhi High Court in Darshan and Others vs Union of India (2000 ACJ 578), where it observed, “The scope and ambit of Article 21 is wide and far-reaching. It would, undoubtedly, cover a case where the State or its instrumentality failed to discharge its duty of care cast upon it, resulting in the deprivation of life or limb of a person. Article 21 of the Constitution is attracted and the petitioners are entitled to invoke Article 226 to claim monetary compensation as such a remedy is available in public law, based on strict liability for breach of fundamental rights.”
