Complaint Case No. 26 of 2002 was filed by the father of a deceased child who met his fate on 28.01.2000 in the school where he was a student.  The child Surendra Kumar aged about 8 years met with an accident near the boundary wall of the school that was a mud-plastered wall.  The wall fell down and the respondent/complainant’s son and another student died on account of the wall having fallen on them as they could not run away.  Some injuries were caused to other students as well, as a result whereof a criminal case being Criminal Case No. 27 of 2000 was lodged, in which a charge-sheet was filed.  The said criminal case was pending when the complaint was decided on 27.05.2009 allowing a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, another Rs.20,000/- for harassment and mental agony and Rs.1000/- as litigation costs, a total of Rs.2,21,000/-, coupled with 6% interest from the date of filing of the complaint. 

An appeal was filed by the Manager as well as the Principal of the Institution, namely, Sarvodai Junior High School, New Mohal Mugalsarai, District Chandauli, U.P. that was dismissed upholding the order of the District Commission vide order dated 10.05.2022.  The finding recorded by both the Commissions is that there was absence on the part of the petitioners/opposite parties to take due care and they were running the Institution with a boundary wall which was inherently weak constructed loosely with mud plaster capable of causing an accident.  Applying the principles of res ipsa loquitur, the Commissions below came to the conclusion that the collapse of the wall was on account of its inherently weak construction quality which amounted to a grave deficiency, resulting in the death of two students and injuries to other students as well.

It was also recorded that the death of the student took place while he was on his way to receive treatment.  The fact that he was injured due to collapse of the wall is therefore evident.  The defence taken was that the student was trying to climb the wall when he faced the accident.  This fact therefore demonstrates that the accident took place and the death was caused on account of the said accident of the collapse of the wall.  The Institution was therefore liable and responsible, inasmuch as it was the duty of the Institution to have maintained the quality of the wall and to see to it that it does not invite any injury or cause any disaster.  The Institution failed to take due care which resulted in the collapse of the wall and therefore the deficiency is established.

We do not find any error in the said conclusions drawn by the Commissions below and consequently there is no such error or material irregularity so as to interfere with the impugned orders.

It may be mentioned that notices were sought to be served on the respondent/complainant but he has neither been served nor has he appeared to contest this revision petition.  Nonetheless, in view of the aforesaid findings recorded, we see no reason to disturb the impugned orders which are hereby confirmed. 

The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.  Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.