Accident in school: Karnataka high court upholds Rs 10L relief for teacher

Bengaluru: The State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs), constituted under Section 79 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act-2016, has the jurisdiction and authority to issue binding corrective directions against private establishments, including orders directing the payment of compensation, the high court said.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued this ruling, upholding the Rs 10-lakh compensation awarded to Barnali Rout, a teacher working with PSBB Learning Leadership Academy at Jigani in Bengaluru.

On Aug 22, 2013, a Class VI student altered her marks in certain subject papers, prompting an inquiry by teachers. Fearing disciplinary action, the student moved to a windowsill between the ground and first floor of the school building and threatened to jump. While staff members attempted to calm her and prevent any harm, Barnali Rout, acting on her own without any direct or indirect instruction or the knowledge of her colleagues or school management, tried to reach the windowsill in an effort to rescue the student.

However, she lost her footing and fell to the ground floor, sustaining serious injuries. On witnessing the incident, the student panicked and jumped as well. The school management later bore approximately Rs 11.6 lakh towards Barnali Rout’s treatment. In 2019, Rout approached the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs), seeking Rs 60 lakh as compensation. On June 12, 2020, the commissioner awarded her Rs 10 lakh.

Challenging the same, the school management argued that it is a private institution and hence, the state commissioner for PwDs has no jurisdiction. It argued that Rout should have approached the appellate authority as provided under the Karnataka Education Act. and also submitted that the complaint itself is barred by limitation, ie, filed beyond three years.

On the other hand, Rout argued that the management turned down her request for providing suitable accommodation so as to enable her to continue her work.

Justice Govindaraj noted that the petitioner institution failed to comply with the requirement of framing equal opportunity policy, identifying accessible teaching posts, designating a staff member as liaison officer, and registering the policy with the commissioner, etc.

“The commissioner had the power under Section 80(b) read with Section 81 of the Disabilities Act of 2016 to inquire into the deprivation of the teacher’s rights and to issue directions for corrective action. The direction to pay Rs 10 lakh is a legitimate exercise of compensatory power under the 2016 Act, not a penal fine under Section 89. It is a conservative direction against total documented expenses exceeding Rs 46 lakh. The quantum is not arbitrary,” the judge added.

The judge directed the institution to provide Rout a formal written offer of reinstatement to teaching duties with the specific reasonable accommodation set out in her affidavit, namely a ground-floor wheelchair-accessible classroom, a disabled-friendly washroom, a transport allowance of Rs 15,000 per month, 15-minute breaks after every two periods, and the option to teach online on days when physically unable to do so.