Punjab & Haryana HC: ₹1 Crore Compensation to Deceased Student’s Family and ₹50 Lakh to Injured Minor Ordered After Tree Collapse in Chandigarh School
Case Name: ABC (Minor) & Another v. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors.
Date of Judgment: September 29, 2025
Citation: CWP No. 20321 of 2023
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari
Held: The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the father of a deceased girl student and an injured minor student of Carmel Convent School, Chandigarh, and directed the Chandigarh Administration to comply with the Inquiry Committee’s recommendation of awarding ₹1 crore to the family of the deceased and ₹50 lakhs to the injured girl. It held that negligence of the Engineering Department, Chandigarh Administration, stood established as the cause of the tragic incident in which a 250-year-old Peepal tree fell on schoolchildren in July 2022. The Court emphasized that under Article 21, compensation can be granted in writ jurisdiction for violation of the right to life caused by State negligence, independent of private law remedies.
Summary: On 08.07.2022, during the lunch break, students were eating under a Peepal tree at Carmel Convent School, Chandigarh, when a branch suddenly collapsed, killing one girl and causing amputation of another student’s arm. An inquiry headed by Justice (Retd.) Jitendra Chauhan found the Engineering Department negligent and recommended compensation of ₹1 crore to the deceased’s family and ₹50 lakhs to the injured student, along with free future medical treatment, besides employment benefits for a staff member who rescued children. While the Chandigarh Administration accepted most recommendations, it refused compensation, citing prior ex-gratia payments and arguing that recommendations were non-binding. The Court rejected these objections, holding that public law remedies allow direct award of compensation for breach of fundamental rights. Relying on Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), Union Carbide v. Union of India (1991), and its own precedents in Raman v. State of Haryana (2013), it held that courts can evolve new principles of liability in cases of State negligence. It dismissed the argument that the incident was an “act of God,” noting expert reports that the tree was diseased (“heart rot”) and that the Engineering Department failed to conduct scientific inspections despite warnings from earlier tree falls.
Decision: The High Court directed the Chandigarh Administration to pay ₹1 crore to the father of the deceased student and ₹50 lakhs to the injured minor, along with all future medical expenses, within three months. It reiterated that constitutional courts cannot abdicate their duty to enforce the right to life through compensation when negligence by State authorities is established.