Ruling in favour of the boy, Sessions court judge Roslan Hamid ordered the government pay RM178,770 in compensation for the mishap that took place four years ago when Sasitharan was eight.
“I find the defendants had failed in their duty to ensure the safety of students under their care,” Roslan said when delivering his decision.
He said the defendants can foresee the danger of the broken metal door knob that had caused Sasitharan’s injury and even six days after the incident, the school had failed to repair the broken door knob and did not do anything to cover it up.
On July 2, 2010, Sasitharan suffered an injury to his left eye when he collided with a classroom door, and the broken metal door handle penetrated his left eye, causing permanent damage.
His left eye is blinded and since then, he has been undergoing various medical treatments and procedures for the injury.
His parents, from a middle income class, spared no costs in getting good medical care for him and even took him to India for treatments in hopes that he could at least recover some sight on the left eye.
“I have to sell off our terrace house in Bukit Mertajam at RM80,000 to pay for the medical fees so now we’re renting a house,” Sasitharan’s father M. Paramaseevan, 52 said.
Sasitharan, through his parents and counsel Jessica Ram Binwani, filed a suit against the headmaster of SJKC Kay Sin, the Director-General of Education and the Malaysian government for injuries he suffered in the school in 2010, when he was eight years old.
He claimed that the school headmaster and the Education Department were negligent, among others, for failing to ensure the safety of the school children, for failing to repair the broken door knob and for failing to give any warning to the children of the dangerous condition of the door.
In granting Sasitharan’s statement of claim, Roslan said as the headmaster is a civil servant, the responsibility falls on the second and third defendant, who are the Education DG and the Malaysian government who will pay the compensation awarded by the court.
Sasitharan had asked for RM190,000 in special and general damages, exemplary and aggravated damages, costs and interests.
“I allow the special and general damages amounting to RM170,070, interests since 2010 and costs totalling RM8,700 but the claim for exemplary and aggravated damages are rejected,” Roslan said.
Outside the courtroom, Paramaseevan told reporters that he received the decision with mixed feelings.
“On one side, I’m happy that after this case has dragged on for four years, we won the case but on the other hand, the government is only paying me back the money that I have already forked out to pay for my son’s medical fees but what about my son’s future? His left eye is gone forever and he will forever be impaired by it,” he said.
When asked if he will try to appeal to ask for exemplary and aggravated damages, he said these past four years of going in and out of court just to recover his son’s medical fees are enough.
“I’m 52 already, I’m not getting any younger so I don’t have four or five more years to waste going in and out of court,” he said.
He explained they had decided to take action against the school and the government because they wanted to have some money to secure their son’s future.
“We don’t want to become rich from this case. All we want is to give our son a future because he has his whole life ahead of him and it will not be easy due to his visual impairment,” he said.
Sasitharan’s mother K.Muniammal, 40, couldn’t contain her tears when talking about her son’s condition and how he is suffering in school due to his impairment.
“He was a normal cheerful boy who loved school and now, he can’t see clearly and he’s getting headaches due to the strain to his eye. I don’t know how his future will be now,” she said.
In their statement of defence against the case, the defendants do not deny the incident had occurred, but had pleaded contributory negligence on Sasitharan’s part as he was running around in school which was flouting the school rules against running.
Roslan dismissed the defendants’ plea of contributory negligence on Sasitharan’s part by stating that an eight year old boy should not be held responsible for negligence when the school had failed to ensure safety of its students.
https://my.news.yahoo.com/blinding-boy-court-orders-putrajaya-pay-rm178-770-225500097.html
No comments:
Post a Comment