Dismissed

Panikkaveettil Sir Sebastian Public School, v. Salmanul Farris

Kerala HC26 May 2023RSA/429/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal challenging the quantum of damages in a suit for injuries to a minor student. The High Court rejected the plea that the damages were excessive but directed a re-drafting of the decree to align with the lower court's judgment regarding interest.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed on legal grounds; lower appellate court directed to re-draft the decree to correct the interest period and issue a fresh decree.

Panikkaveettil Sir Sebastian Public School, Vs… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

RSA NO. 429 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN AS 4/2021 OF SUB COURT, CHERTHALA

¶7

OS 517/2018 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA

¶8

APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶9

1PANIKKAVEETTIL SIR SEBASTIAN PUBLIC SCHOOL,
VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, CHERTHALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, FR. LEENOSE P.S, AGED 74 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SEBASTIAN, PANICKKAVEETTIL, THURAVOOR P.O,
CHERTHALA, PIN - 688 536.

¶10

2 DIANA,

¶11

AGED 56 YEARS

¶12

W/O. JACOB, PRINCIPAL, PANIKKAVEETTIL SIR SEBASTIAN
PUBLIC SCHOOL, VAYALAR, VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, CHERTHALA,
PIN - 688 536.

¶13

BY ADVS.
T.R.RAJAN
R.AZAD BABU

¶14

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

¶15

SALMANUL FARRIS,

¶16

AGED 11 YEARS (MINOR),

¶17

S/O. AKBAR, UKKIRATTUVELIYIL, WARD 4, VAYALAR PANCHAYATH,
VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, CHERTHALA,

¶18

PIN 688 536, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND
SEBIA, AGED 36 YEARS, UKKIRATTUVELIYIL, WARD 4, VAYALAR
PANCHAYATH, VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, PIN - 688 536.

¶19

BY ADV M.SHAJNA

¶20

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

RSA NO. 429 OF 2022

¶22

¶23

T.R. RAVI, J.

¶24

-------------------------------------------- R.S.A No.429 of 2022

¶25

Dated this the 26^th day of May, 2023

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The appellants have challenged the concurrent judgment and decree in a suit filed on behalf of the minor respondent for damages. The first appellant is a School, and the second appellant is its Principal. An accident happened in the school, leading to a fracture of the respondent’s leg. There is a contention that the treatment was delayed, and the child had to undergo two surgeries and is still having issues with the leg even after all these years. The trial court decreed the suit and directed the appellants to pay an amount of Rs.97,595/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 30.10.2017, which is the date of the incident, till the date of the decree and thereafter, with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.97,595/- from the date of decree till the date of realization and cost of the suit. Aggrieved by the decree,

¶28

RSA NO. 429 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

the appellants preferred an appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Cherthala as A.S.04/2021. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment. Hence the second appeal.

¶31

A reading of the memorandum of the second appeal shows that no substantial questions of law have been raised. The only question raised is that the quantum of damages awarded is excessive. The counsel relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Jyni and Ors. Vs. Raphel, P.T. and Ors. [2016 (2) KHC 870] to submit that the award of Rs.50,000/towards pain and suffering was not justified. The Division Bench was considering a case under the Motor Vehicles Act. While dealing with the amounts to be awarded under the head “pain and suffering” the court observed that in the case of instant death and in the case of death after several days, the manner in which the question of pain and suffering should be considered would differ. The court found “the case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling of

¶32

RSA NO. 429 OF 2022

¶33

¶34

hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution enures every day. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped person comes at an enormous price, physical, financial and emotional, not only on the victim but even more so on his family and attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their equanimity.” The court said that a conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/- could be awarded in the case of instant death. But a slightly higher amount can be awarded under the head if the death is not instantaneous. The court did not in any manner find that there can be a fixing of the maximum amount that can be granted under the head. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Jameela Vs. Nagendra Rao [2021 (6) KLT 359]. The learned Judge considered the effect of the Division Bench in Jyni (supra) and the other judgments on the subject. The court held that whilst no amount of money or other material compensation can erase the trauma, pain and suffering that a victim undergoes after a serious accident, (or replace the loss of a loved one),

¶35

RSA NO. 429 OF 2022

¶36

¶37

monetary compensation is the manner known to law, whereby society assures some measure of restitution to those who survive and the victims who have to face their lives. The court further held that no ceiling limit is prescribed in any manner regarding the grant of compensation under the head of pain and sufferings in cases of injury. In the said case, the court increased the compensation under the head “pain and suffering” from ‘Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/-’. Neither of the said judgments can in any way compel this Court to interfere with the concurrent judgment. A child of 6 years suffered an injury. Negligence has been found. Compensation had been awarded. Admittedly, the child had to undergo two surgeries. The court has found that despite extensive cross-examination of the doctors who treated, no case of medical negligence has been brought out. No substantial question of law is raised. The appeal necessarily has to be dismissed. The counsel for the appellants points out that the appellate court has committed a mistake as regards the decree. The trial court had granted interest from the date of the

¶38

RSA NO. 429 OF 2022

¶39

¶40

incident. The appellate court in its judgment has modified the decree by restricting the payment of interest from the date of the filing of the suit. Even though the modification is stated in the judgment it has not been carried out in the decree which has been drafted. To that extent the counsel is justified.

¶41

In the result, the second appeal is dismissed as regards the questions of law raised. However, there will be a direction to the lower appellate court to re-draft the decree in accordance with the judgment and issue a fresh decree. The application for execution shall be continued after a fresh decree is drafted and issued. The executing court shall also confirm whether there is any necessity to attach the properties of the School, which is a running School and instead the decree can be executed in some other manner.

¶42

Sd/T.R.RAVI JUDGE

¶43

mpm

Panikkaveettil Sir Sebastian Public School, v. Salmanul Farris

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panikkaveettil Sir Sebastian Public School, v. Salmanul Farris

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kodiyil Ashraf Vs S. Chandrasekar (Ias)

Susan Mathew Vs Renjith George

Sambashivan Vs Manoj K.R

State of Kerala Vs Meghatheertham Time Sharing Pvt. Ltd, Represented by Its Managing Director

Thankappan Vs Sabimol P.S.

Dr.P.Visalam Vs the District Collector