M.S. GREWAL AND ANR. versus DEEP CHAND SOOD AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 156 · Decided: 24-08-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY PRAKASH MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
M.S. GREWAL AND ANR. 
V. 
DEEP CHAND SOOD AND ORS. 
AUGUST 24, 2001 
[A.P. MISRA AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
Negligence-School-Picnic organised by-Negligence of teachers-
Vicarious liability of school-Picnic on bank of river-Students allowed to 
C stray. down stream and enter unchartered water-Drowning-Death of fourteen 
students-Writ by parents of deceased children-School held vicariously 
liable-Compensation to parents of deceased children-Determination of 
compensation-Principles for. 
Negligence-Meaning of-Difference between negligence and 
D inadvertence. 
Teacher-Students under charge-Duty of care towards students. 
In a picnic organised by a school on the bank of a river death of 14 
students occurred due to drowning because of utter and callous neglect of 
teachers on duty. In the writ petition filed by the parents of the deceased 
E children the High Court found that the students fell a victim of utter neglect . 
of two teachers who were deputed to escort the students for taking their due 
and proper care. The children were allowed to play in the danger zone of 
water without any caution or warning being sounded. They were allowed to 
stray down stream and enter into unchartered waters. Consequently they 
p drowned as the depth of water exceeded their average height. Both these 
teachers were found guilty and convicted under section 304-A IPC. The High 
Court also directed that the Chairman and Management of the School to pay 
a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the parents of each of the fourteen students 
who died in the incident. 
G 
In appeal to this Court it was contended for the school that (i) the school 
H 
cannot be held vicariously liable for negligence of teachers because the event 
occurred outside the school premises; (ii) the award of staggering figure of 
rupees five lakhs to the parents of each of the deceased student was arbitrary 
and in utter disregard of the known principles of law; (iii) while fixing 
compensation courts cannot proceed on emotions and sentiments only and 
156 
M.S. GREWAL v. D.C. SOOD 
157 
that determination of compensation must also have a co-relation with ability A 
or capability to pay. 
Disposing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. Negligence is an independent tort and has its own strict 
elements specially in the matter of children. The liability is absolute vis-a-vis B 
the children. While the parent owes his child, a duty of care in relation to the 
child's physical security, a teacher in a school is expected to show such care 
towards a child under his charge as would be exercised by a reasonably careful 
parent. Duty of care varies from situation to situation-whereas it would be 
the duty of the teacher to supervise the children in the playground but the C 
supervision, as the children leave the school, may not be required in the san1e 
degree as is in the play-field. While it is true that if the students are taken to 
another school building for participation in certain games, it is sufficient 
exercise of diligence to know that the premises are otherwise safe and secure 
but undoubtedly if the students are taken out to playground near a river for 
fun and swim, the degree of care required stands at a much higher degree D 
and no deviation therefrom can be had on any count whatsoever. Mere 
satisfaction that the river. is otherwise safe for swim by reason of popular 
sayings will not be a sufficient compliance. As a matter of fact the degree of 
care required to be taken specially against the minor children stands at a much 
higher level than adults; children need much sticter care. [167-F, D-E[ 
Ricketts v. Erith Borough Council and Anr., (1943) 2 All ER 629 and Prince 
and Anr. v. Gregory and Anr., (1959) 1 WLR 177, referred to. 
E 
2. To escort the children was the duty assigned to the two teachers and 
till such time this period of escorting stands over, one cannot but ascribe it to 
be in the course of employment. The two teachers were assigned to escort the F 
students : the reason obviously being-the children should otherwise be safe 
and secure and it is the act of utter negligence of the two teachers which has 
resulted in this unfortunate tragedy and thus it is no gainsaid that the teachers 
were on their own fralic and the school had done all that was possible to be 
done in the matter-safety of the children obviously was of prime concern so G 
far as the school authorities are concerned and till such time the children 
return to school, safe and s

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.