GEORGE DIAS Vs. DON BOSCO BOARDING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the unfortunate parents of the deceased Roy Dias who died due to drowning in the sea at Calangute. The petitioners' son was a boarder in respondent No. 1. The petitioners are residing at Mumbai. As per the averments made in the petition, respondent no. 1 is a trust, which also manages respondent No. 2 English Medium School. The deceased son of the petitioners was aged 17 years at the relevant time and as per the averments made in the petition, he was the only son of the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that on 9. 9. 2001, they received a telephonic message from the Boarding Authority that their son Master Roy Dias expired on account of an accident. On hearing the said news, petitioner No. 1 rushed to Goa from Mumbai. The dead body of the deceased Roy Dias was handed over to petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 was informed by the Boarding Authority that his son died on account of drowning in the sea between 12. 00 noon 3. 00 p. m. and his body was fished out of the sea water with the help of a helicopter. It is also the case of the petitioners that on inquiry, the petitioner came to know that his son and others had left the hostel without informing the hostel Superintendent and out of 7 students, 5 had gone for swimming and out of 5 students, 3 students including the son of the petitioners got drowned in the sea. The dead body of the deceased son of the petitioners was, thereafter, taken to Mumbai. The petitioners, thereafter, obtained death certificate of their son. According to the petitioners, their son died because of carelessness and negligence on the part of respondent No. 1 and notice was also sent by the petitioner through their Advocate asking respondents No. 1 and 2 to pay the compensation. The Boarding Authority denied the allegations in the notice through its reply. The petitioners, ultimately, approached this Court with a prayer that an independent commission may be appointed for investigating the incident in question. It is also prayed that respondents no. 1 and 2 may be directed to pay Rs. 20,00,000/-by way of compensation to the petitioners which is claimed towards the loss of pecuniary benefits.

(2.) THE petition has been resisted by the respondents. On an earlier occasion, the petitioners had filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 90/2002. The said writ petition was disposed off by a Division Bench of this Court vide its Order dated 2. 4. 2002. The Division Bench permitted the petitioners to withdraw the petition with a view to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, including filing of a complaint before the appropriate Authority. Subsequently, an inquiry was conducted by a Police Officer. Gist of the said inquiry proceedings was given to the Advocate of the petitioners at Mumbai. The same is finding place at pages 81 onwards of the paper book. Thereafter, a fresh inquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mapusa which revealed that there is no evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the Boarding Management. In the said report, it is mentioned that one of the survivors of the tragedy in his statement has stated that there was a Life Guard present at the beach at the time of unfortunate incident and there was a caution board displayed at the beach. It was, therefore, found that the Calangute Panchayat cannot be said to be negligent in connection with the tragedy in question. The report further states that the drowning of the boys was an unfortunate incident and no one else was responsible for the tragedy.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No. 1 has framed various regulations framed and regulation 8, inter alia, provides that Boarders will not be permitted to go out for haircuts, shopping, chapel feasts, birthdays, attend a wedding of a relative etc. Relying on the said regulations, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No. 1 should not have permitted the students to go out of the premises. During the course of hearing, however, it is pointed out that the petitioners' son had taken permission for going out of the premises for the purpose of repairing his watch. However, the petitioners' son instead of going for repairing his watch, went to the beach along with other boys for the purpose of swimming. The petitioners' son was about 17 years of age at the time of incident. It cannot, therefore, be said that he was of very tender age and, in fact, he had taken permission for going out for the purpose of repairing his watch and he instead of going for repairing his watch, he went to the beach for the purpose of swimming. Considering the said aspect, it cannot be said that simply because the Boarding Authority gave permission to the petitioners' son for going out of the premises for the purpose of repairing his watch, the boarding Authority was negligent in connection with the incident which had occurred on the relevant day.