Read Time: 05 minutes

The Supreme Court recently upheld the compensation of Rs 8873798 awarded to the complainant by SCDRC for the gross negligence of school authorities which resulted in loss of memory and speech of a student, out on a school tour.

A Division Bench of Justice Navin Sinha and Justice R. Subhash Reddy, while putting aside the NCDRC order reducing original compensation to Rs 50 lakhs, said,

“Judicial discretion is not arbitrary to be exercised sans reason to the prejudice of another. There is no discussion by the National Commission or any reasons spelt out for the formation of this opinion by it to reduce the compensation.

The National Commission did not opine that the compensation awarded under any particular head was excessive, yet it simply opined to reduce the compensation.

In absence of any such material, discussion or reasoning, the reduction of the compensation patently becomes arbitrary and therefore, unsustainable.”

Complainant in appeal was aggrieved by the order of National Consumer Redressal Commission, reducing the compensation awarded to her from Rs 8873798 to 50 lakhs in an appeal preferred by the respondents.

Facts of the case:

At the time of incident, complainant was a child aged 14 years studying in class 9 in an educational institution in Bangalore. In December, 2006, she went on an educational tour with other students to several places in North India, accompanied by teachers of the school.

She was taken ill during the tour by viral fever, diagnosed as Meningo Encephalitis.

It was the opinion of the Doctors that had she been given timely medical aid and attention, she could easily have been cured.

Consequently she was airlifted and moved to Bangalore where she became bed ridden, with no prospects of recovery.

The State Commission while opining that the teachers and other children accompanying the complainant were grossly negligent in performing their duty, awarded a compensation of Rs 8873798.

In an appeal, NCDRC opined that a compensation of Rs 50 lakhs would suffice.

While allowing the Appeal, the Top Court also said,

“The power to exercise judicial discretion is indeed wide but is inherently limited by the requirement of a judicious exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction.

The order must reflect due application of mind to the facts of the case, followed by a brief discussion why the appellate authority was of the opinion that exercise of judicial discretion was called for including the discussion why it opined the compensation to be excessive requiring reduction.”

Case Title: Kum. Akshata v. BNM Education |CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2514 of 2021