100% Disabled After University Wall Collapse: Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards ₹1.47 Crore Compensation to Student

Case Name: Sandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

Date of Judgment: 13 February 2026

Citation: LPA-2351-2017

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikas Suri

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a statutory university performing public functions is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and can be directed to pay compensation in public law remedy for negligence leading to permanent disability of a student. Applying principles governing assessment of compensation in motor accident cases, the Court awarded ₹1.47 crore as just compensation to a student rendered 100% functionally disabled due to collapse of a bathroom wall on the university campus.

Summary: The appellant, a final-year B.Sc. student at Desh Bhagat University, suffered grievous injuries on 11.10.2013 when the bathroom wall on the university campus collapsed during a dust storm, trapping her under debris. She sustained vertebral fractures resulting in paraplegia and permanent disability.

An FIR under Section 338 IPC was registered; however, only a university employee was arrayed as an accused and was subsequently discharged. The appellant sought re-investigation and compensation of ₹1 crore through a writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge as not maintainable. The present intra-court appeal challenged that dismissal.

Before the Division Bench, the appellant gave up the prayer for re-investigation but pressed her claim for compensation on account of tortious liability. The University contended that the writ petition was not maintainable and offered ₹5 lakh as full and final settlement along with an offer of employment.

The Court framed the principal issue as to whether a writ petition seeking compensation for negligence against a statutory university is maintainable.

It was observed that the University was established under the Desh Bhagat University Act, 2012 and performs the public function of imparting education. Relying on Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University and other precedents, the Court held that an authority performing public functions is amenable to writ jurisdiction.

The Court further held that educational institutions owe a heightened duty of care to ensure safe infrastructure, flowing from Articles 21 and 21A of the Constitution. The doctrines of vicarious liability and res ipsa loquitur were applied, observing that the bathroom structure was under the exclusive control of the University and such an incident does not ordinarily occur in absence of negligence.

On quantum, the Court adopted the multiplier method as applied in motor accident jurisprudence. The appellant was 23 years old at the time of the incident. Though a subsequent medical board assessed 90% disability, the Court treated her functional disability as 100%, noting that she was incapable of independent living.

Her notional income was assessed at ₹22,500 per month with addition of 40% towards future prospects. Multiplier of 18 was applied. No deduction towards personal expenses was made, as the claim was by a survivor suffering permanent disability.

Compensation was awarded under the following heads: Loss of future earnings; Attendant charges (for two attendants applying multiplier); Future medical expenses; Pain and suffering (₹15 lakh); Loss of marital prospects; Other non-pecuniary damages.

The total compensation was quantified at ₹1,47,54,000 along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition. The Court rejected the University’s offer of ₹5 lakh as wholly inadequate and held that compensation must be substantial and not merely token.

Decision: The appeal was allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside to the extent it dismissed the claim for compensation as not maintainable. The University was directed to pay ₹1,47,54,000 with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition till realization. Directions were also issued regarding structured disbursement to safeguard the appellant’s financial security.