(1.) Defendants 2, 3 and 4 in O.S. No. 372 of 1989, on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Dharmapuri, are the appellants.
(2.) Suit was filed by plaintiff, who is a minor through her next-friend (father) as an indigent person, for recovery of compensation for the injury caused to the minor plaintiff, on the following allegations :-Plaintiff, at the time of institution of the suit, was a 9th Std. Student in the school of the first appellant. It is a Government managed school. First defendant in this case is an 'Aya' in that school. On 7-8-1987, after the Prayer was over, in the morning, first defendant ordered the plaintiff and another student by name Kavitha to fetch water from a boring pipe situated near the cinema talkies at Saligramam, 11/2 furlongs away. They were given a plastic pot, and they were asked to take the cycle of one Viswanathan, who is also an employee of that School. Plaintiff, as instructed by the 'Aya' took the cycle of Viswanathan and went to fetch water. After water was taken from the boring pipe, the pot was kept in the cycle-carrier. In order to facilitate the placing of the pot correctly and to hold the pot tightly, plaintiff pulled the upper holding portion of the cycle-carrier spring, but it came out forcibly and the spring pierced the right eye ball of the plaintiff. The cycle-carrier spring was not in perfect condition and it was negligently kept in such a poor and ill-maintained condition that it broke and damaged the right eye of the plaintiff. The cornea was perforated and plaintiff lost her vision in the right eye completely.
(3.) It is the case of the plaintiff that even though it is the duty of the 'Aya' to bring water, it was all along her habit, with the implied consent of the school authorities, to ask the school children to take water from the nearby bore-pipo. It is said that since the injury was caused at the instance of the first defendant with the consent of the school authorities, all the defendants are jointly and severally liable. It is her case that the State of Tamil Nadu should also be made liable vicariously.