The High Court enhanced compensation awarded to parents whose minor son drowned in a college swimming pool. The court revised the notional income from Rs.30,000 to Rs.60,000 and set total compensation at Rs.10,25,000, allowing the appeal.
Judgment and decree modified; defendant directed to deposit Rs.10,25,000 plus interest at 7% per annum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
A.S..No.27 of 2022
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date :07.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
A.S.No.27 of 2022
Versus
Y.M.C.A. College of Physical Education, Rep. by its Secretary, Anna Salai, Cehnnai – 600 035. ... Respondent
PRAYER : This Appeal Suit has been filed under section 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.976 of 2015 dated 28.02.2020 on the file of the VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai with costs throughout.
For Appellants : Mr.Kevin Sagaya Lazarus for PLN Associates For Respondent : No appearance
Page 1 / 12
A.S..No.27 of 2022
JUDGMENT
Challenging the decree and judgment of the trial Court fixing meagre compensation, the present appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation.
Court.
The first defendant gave a wide advertisement in the news papers about their summer campaign for swimming. The plaintiffs joined their son aged about 15 years in the swimming class run by the first defendant. The first defendant has assured safety of children. Other defendants have also assured that the swimming class will be conducted by a reputed and experienced coach with sufficient number of life guards in the pool to ensure full safety of the children. The plaintiff's son joined in the third summer camp held from
Page 2 / 12
A.S..No.27 of 2022
11.05.2004 to 29.5.2004 and fees is sum of Rs.600/- and membership fees has also been paid. The plaintiff’s son attended swimming class for two days. On 12.05.2004, on the second day of the swimming class, the son of the plaintiff drowned in the swimming pool due to negligent and careless attitude of the second defendant and other staff of the first defendant. When the first plaintiff rushed to hospital, he was informed that his son was brought dead and thereafter, he came to know that the second defendant and his staff have instructed the beginners to wear inflated tubes before getting into the water. Hence, according to them, the entire drowning has happened due to the negligence on the part of the defendants. Hence, compensation of Rs.50 lakhs is sought.
Page 3 / 12
A.S..No.27 of 2022
accompany their children and it is also informed that as soon as they reach the pool, they should report to the coach allotted to the child and the plaintiff's son
was also directed to report to the second defendant. Under the second defendant, there were 8 assistants and two life guards to take care of the swimming learners under their care and for training. The swimming pool was partitioned into two divisions one for learners and other for regular swimmers. The shallow area with a depth of 3ft to 4ft was meant for learners and while the deep pool area was earmarked for regular swimmers. On 12.05.04, the plaintiff's son was not given custody by the plaintiff or guardian at 4.30 p.m. Hence, according to them, there is no negligence on their part at any point of time.
framed :
Page 4 / 12
A.S..No.27 of 2022
Rs.20,00,000/-] with interest at 12% p.a. as prayed for?
and in difference towards the victim while coaching and rendering medical attendance?
to the contributory negligence of the victim?
suit has been dismissed as against the second defendant as the plaintiff has not
Page 5 / 12
A.S..No.27 of 2022
appeared for the defendant.
Page 6 / 12
A.S..No.27 of 2022
notional income at Rs.30,000/- for child aged about 15
years?
enhanced?
I have perused entire materials available on record. As far as running of
the swimming pool for children by the first defendant is not disputed in the
pleadings. The only contention of the defendants is that there were experienced coaches and assistants in the swimming pool and the parents are instructed to hand over the custody of their children to the coach. According to them, on 12.05.2004, the child was not handed over to the coach. Therefore, it is their contention that there is no negligence on their part which
Page 7 / 12
A.S..No.27 of 2022
resulted in the accident.
Page 8 / 12
A.S..No.27 of 2022
find fault with.
Page 9 / 12
A.S..No.27 of 2022
07.02.2025
Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order
Page 10 / 12
A.S..No.27 of 2022
vrc
To, The VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
Page 11 / 12
A.S..No.27 of 2022
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc
A.S.No.27 of 2022
07.02.2025
Page 12 / 12
2 issues framed by the court
Was the trial Court correct in fixing the notional income at Rs.30,000/- for a child aged about 15 years?
Whether the compensation awarded by the lower courts is liable to be enhanced to meet the ends of justice?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kishan Gopal and another Vs. Lola in 2013[2] TNMAC 358 SCReferred¶14
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M.Annamalai
AN.Meenakshi
Y.M.C.A. College of Physical Education
N. SATHISH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
