Science student to 100% disability: Punjab and Haryana High Court orders university to pay Rs 1.37 crore after 12-year battle

Res ipsa loquitur: Thing speaks for itself

• The Latin phrase res ipsa loquitur literally translates to “the thing speaks for itself”.
• It is applied in cases where the facts are such that the harm could not have been caused but for the lack of due care and caution on the part of the negligent party since it was in exclusive control of the situation.
• The building in question belongs to the respondent university, which is liable to maintain the institution/campus buildings so as not to endanger the life and property of the students and others present on the campus.
• The university authorities cannot escape their liability to compensate the appellant for the injuries suffered by her on the campus on account of the collapse of the bathroom wall, the building of which is indisputably owned by the respondent university.
• This court finds no reason why a similar right to a safe educational campus must not vest in a student going to a university, such as the appellant in the case.
• Where there is such a right vested in the appellant under Article 21, a corresponding duty is cast upon the respondent-university to ensure structural integrity of its buildings; there is no reason why an appropriate remedy, in the form of compensation, should not be allowed by this court.
• Negligence in performing the said duty by an authority performing a public function has deprived a young student of unfathomable opportunities in her lifetime.
• In fact, the level of precaution that ought to have been exercised would be much higher when the institution is an educational institution.
• The doctrine of ‘vicarious liability’ would be attracted.
• The respondent university having failed to bring any material on record to demonstrate that it was not liable to maintain the bathroom on the campus, the liability of the authorities, derived from its relationship with the negligent officials, would be truly vicarious.

Recognising human loss

• Undisputedly, the appellant was critically injured in the unfortunate accident and has been rendered 100 per cent permanently physically disabled in relation to her whole body.
• Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries and the permanent disability suffered and the fact that the appellant is incapable of independently taking care of herself or even attending to her daily needs, the functional disability would remain at 100 per cent for the whole body.
• There is no dispute of the factum that the appellant was a final-year student of three years BSc course in the university.
• As such, she was a meritorious student having been admitted to the Science stream.
• The appellant was only 23 years old on the date of the incident, with a bright future and a whole life to look forward to.
• Being a student of science, there were many opportunities available to her to pursue after graduating from the university.
• We cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellant is a young woman who would naturally have dreams of settling in matrimony and having children of her own, whose dreams stand adversely impacted by the unfortunate incident.
• It is well recognised that marriage/companionship is an integral part of the natural life of a human being.
• Keeping in view the nature of the injuries suffered by the appellant and her 100 per cent functional disability, it is near impossible for her to rear children and enjoy the simple pleasures of marital life.
• The appellant, having been confined and restricted in her movement on account of the permanent disability suffered by her, would be required to spend extra money for transportation.
• Not only that, the appellant would also require a special diet, keeping in view the nature of her injuries, which has limited her movement to negligible.

Determining ‘just compensation’

• Notional monthly income fixed at Rs 22,500.
• 40 per cent addition towards future prospects.
• Multiplier of 18 (considering her age of 23 at the time of the accident).
• Attendant charges calculated for two attendants using the multiplier method.
• Rs 5 lakh for future medical expenses.
• Rs 15 lakh for pain and suffering.
• Rs 5 lakh for loss of marriage prospects.
• Rs 1 lakh for transportation and special diet.
• Total compensation was calculated at Rs 1,37,24,000.

Final directions

• Allowing the appeal, the high court held that the single judge erred in dismissing the writ petition at the threshold.
• The university and its managing foundation were held jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded compensation of Rs 1.37 crore within three months, along with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition.

University’s response: ‘Unfortunate incident’

• The university did not deny that the wall collapsed.
• It termed the incident unfortunate but denied negligence.
• It argued that the writ petition was not maintainable and contended that it had borne medical expenses.
• On affidavit, the university offered Rs 5 lakh as full and final settlement and a suitable job either for Sandeep or an eligible family member, subject to qualifications.
• The bench was unimpressed.
• Given that the appellant had been rendered permanently disabled for life, the offer appeared symbolic rather than restorative, it observed.

Stormy 2013 afternoon

• On the afternoon of October 11, 2013, Sandeep Kaur, a 23-year-old final-year BSc student at Desh Bhagat University, managed by Aasra Foundations, had gone to a bathroom inside the university campus with a friend.
• As her friend entered the bathroom, Kaur sat outside on a chair nearby.
• Suddenly, a dust storm swept through the area. In a matter of moments, the wall of the bathroom structure collapsed. The debris buried her beneath it.
• She suffered severe spinal injuries, including compression fractures of the L1 vertebra.
• She was first rushed to Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh, then referred to Government Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, and later shifted to a private hospital in Panchkula for specialised care.
• The physical damage was catastrophic. A disability certificate issued on April 30, 2016, assessed her permanent disability at 100 per cent in relation to her whole body.
• Later, a medical board assessed it at 90 per cent, but the high court observed that her functional disability, her ability to live independently, remained 100 per cent.
• The court recorded that she suffers from paraplegia and is unable to attend to daily needs without assistance.

FIR and legal battle

• Following her statement, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered at Amloh police station in Punjab’s Fatehgarh Sahib district on October 29, 2013, under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• IPC Section 338 pertains to causing grievous hurt by an act endangering the life or personal safety of others.
• However, only a university employee was arrayed as an accused.
• In April 2017, he was discharged by the trial court.
• The higher authorities of the university were not prosecuted.
• Alleging that the investigation was incomplete and influenced, Kaur approached the high court seeking a reinvestigation and Rs 1 crore in compensation.
• During the appeal proceedings, she chose not to press the reinvestigation plea and instead focused on her civil claim for damages.