Begin typing your search...

    Madras HC sets aside compensation for schoolboy who lost an eye in fight with classmate

    The Secretary, Education Department appealed against the ruling for compensation and argued that his department or officials were in no way responsible for the incident and can’t be held responsible.

    Madras HC sets aside compensation for schoolboy who lost an eye in fight with classmate
    X

    Madras High Court

    MADURAI: The Madurai bench of Madras High Court sets aside an earlier order delivered on March 28, 2017, directing the Department of Education to provide a compensation of Rs 25 lakh for a schoolboy, who lost vision during a tiff with a fellow student.

    The petitioner’s son, Remish Fedlin, a class 9 student of a private school in Kanniyakumari district, in 2010 attended special coaching classes in the institution. It’s averred that during the interval Fedlin was attacked by a co-student Jeya Frank with a stone. When Fedlin tried to escape the attack, the stone hit his right eye. Despite treatment, the lost his vision power in the right eye. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition before the HC Bench seeking Rs 50 lakh as compensation on May 5, 2010, and the court ordered a compensation of Rs 25 lakh to be paid by the education department.

    The Secretary, Education Department appealed against the ruling for compensation and argued that his department or officials were in no way responsible for the incident and can’t be held responsible.

    The disability certificate also showed that he had sustained 40 per cent disability and the injuries sustained by him were only due to the negligence on the part of the appellants, the secretary added.

    A division bench comprising Justice P Velmurugan and Justice KK Ramakrishnan in the order said we don’t find any iota of material to show that the incident happened only due to the act or negligence of the appellant, but by the co-student.

    Therefore, the order passed by the single Judge is hereby set aside and further the petitioner is at liberty to work out a remedy in the manner known to law.

    DTNEXT Bureau
    Next Story