Madras High Court Asks College To Pay Rs 5 Lakh Compensation To Family Of Engineering Student Who Drowned In Sea During Coastal Cleanup Drive

Justice SM Subramaniam held that the college was not responsible for the drowning of the student, who had voluntarily taken a bath in the sea despite instructions against the same. However, the court noted that the college had failed to inform the authorities about the intended cleanup activity and obtain prior permission. 

Calling it to be a "milder form of negligence" by the college, the court observed,

Thus, it is not a case of an absolute negligence on the part of the Authorities including the College and Organisers, but the College had failed to obtain necessary approval from the Competent Authorities. Hence, to that extent, they have committed an act of negligence, which is to be construed as “Milder form of Negligence”.

Thus, instead of adopting a multiplier method, the court granted a fixed compensation of five lakh rupees to be paid by the college authorities to the family of the deceased boy.

The plea was moved by the victim's father, claiming a compensation of twenty five lakh rupees along with interest. He had contended that since the programme was conducted by the National Service Scheme (NSS) unit of the college, which came within the administration of Union Government (Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports), the government was responsible.

He further contended that the authorities had failed to take adequate safety measures while organising the event. They had also failed to ensure deployment of trained swimmers for taking care of the students.

The Government, however, denied the allegation and submitted that the program was a one day event conducted by the Institution for which the Ministry or the State Department could not be held liable.

The University and the District Collector also submitted that the college had not taken prior approval for conducting the coastal cleanup and that the same was not part of the NSS activity.

The college vehemently opposed the plea by stating that the students were clearly instructed not to venture into the sea. However, some students, including the deceased, had taken a bath in the sea on their own volition. Thus, the college submitted that they cannot be blamed for the voluntary act of the deceased student.

The court agreed with this submission. It noted that the boys had jumped into the sea, having knowledge of the consequences and without informing the organisers. Thus, it was a case of volenti non fit injuria.

"Since it was the voluntary act of two students for jumping into the sea, the principle of “Volenti Non Fit Injuria” squarely applies to the facts of this case. Therefore, none can be blamed for the voluntary act of the deceased student."

However, the court added that the college was negligent in not taking prior approval or taking adequate precautionary measures while conducting the program.

"Every Educational Institution, while organising programmes, educational tours, events, etc. for students, are expected to take all precautionary measures for the safety and security of the students. Though the student in the present case was aged 21 years at the time of the incident, if the Life Guards and Government machinery were put in place, then his life would have been saved and to that extent the College Authorities failed in their duty to get approval from the District Collector and to inform the Anna University."

Thus, the court directed the college to pay the compensation.

Case Title: V Shanmugham (Deceased) and others v. Union of India and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 98