₹10K Per Teeth Mark & ₹20K Per 0.2 CM Of Wound In Dog Bite Cases: Punjab And Haryana HC Issues Guidelines For Compensation In Stray Animal Attack Cases
Noting that people cannot be left to fend for themselves for a State failure, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently while dealing with a bunch of 193 Writ Petitions issued multiple directives to the Police authorities to ensure an expeditious resolution and prompt addressing of the incidents related to the menace of stray or wild animals in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh.
The Court has also directed that "in the cases relating to dog bites, the financial assistance shall be at a minimum of Rs.10,000/- per teeth mark and where the flesh has been pulled off the skin, it shall be a minimum of Rs.20,000/- per "0.2 cm" of the wound."
The Single Bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj in its 164-page judgement observed, "Notwithstanding that such a large number of cases are being reported and even instituted before the Courts, the State has shown no inclination to address the issue. They have chosen to look the other way as people suffer injuries every day and underplay the magnitude of the problem by under-recording the incidents. The denial of existence of a problem does not redress the problem but only escalates the agony of the citizen."
The Court held that the State owed a public duty to safeguard the citizens/residents from the aforementioned menace and having failed to fulfil the said obligations, they cannot be permitted to escape liability by pleading paucity of resources or insufficiency of funds. The Judgement also highlighted that the people cannot be left to fend for themselves for a failure of the State.
Further, acknowledging that the the doctrine of strict liability would apply to incidents/ accidents due to stray/wild animals on roads and public streets fastening the liability on the State, the Court observed, "The law specifically recognizes that a person may be held liable in respect of wrongful acts or omissions of another under the following circumstances: (i) as having been ratified or authorized to do a particular act; (ii) as standing towards the other person in a relation entailing responsibilities for wrongs done by that person; and (iii) as having abetted the tortuous acts committed by others. Hence, when an act is done by an agent or any Agency or Instrumentality of the State, the same is deemed to be done by it for and on behalf of the State, who would nonetheless principally remain bound to ensure that an adequate and appropriate mechanism be put in place to safeguard the lives of its citizens/residents."
Accordingly, on this aspect, the Court stated that the liability of the State on the principles of strict liability is well accepted where accidents have occurred due to stray/wild animals and hence the State is liable to compensate for the occurrence of such an event.
On the other aspect, whether a claim for compensation/financial assistance can be made only by way of a writ petition in the absence of any statutory regulations, the Court observed that the jurisdiction and remedy under the common law would always be available to the persons aggrieved to claim compensation and a writ petition is thus not exclusive jurisdiction and is only an alternate to what should otherwise be the normal procedure.
The Court accordingly stated, "It is only in certain exceptional circumstances, grave exigencies or hardship of an exceptional nature and/or where a competent Court feels that such interference is necessary for meeting the ends of justice, that a writ Court may exercise its jurisdiction. The presence of an alternative remedy is though not a bar to entertain a writ petition for grant of compensation in an appropriate and befitting case, however, such indulgence, in exceptional cases, should not be construed as laying down a legal course and procedure for adjudication of such disputes, creating a sense of entitlement to bypass the normal procedure."
Further, addressing the issue as to which agency or authority ought to be held liable for paying compensation and the procedure required to be followed for the computation of compensation, the Court observed:
Areas falling outside the jurisdiction of Local Government: "The State through the department of Local Self-Government in relation to the areas falling within the notified Municipal Authorities and through the Department of Panchayat and Development for the areas falling outside the jurisdiction of Local Government would be liable to pay the claims against the Award passed."
On a State Road/State Highway: Here the Court stated, "Similarly, where the incident in question has occurred on a State Road/State Highway, the Government through the Department of PWD (B&R) and where the road is under any scheme/grant by the Government, the Government through the Department implementing the said scheme shall be liable for being prosecuted and disbursing the claim awarded."
Accidents that have taken place on the National Highways: The Court observed, "Where the claims are against the incidents/accidents that have taken place on the National Highways, the National Highway Authority of India shall be principally liable." On account of wild animals: the Court answered, "Where the incident/accident is on account of wild animal, the Government through the Department of Forest, Wildlife and Environment (as may be applicable) would be liable to disburse the compensation. However, where there is involvement of more than one department (e.g. a wild animal/ stray animal causes accident on Highway etc.), the competent Court may apportion the compensation between the respective departments."
The Court also observed that it is therefore, deemed expedient to issue the following guidelines to be followed by the police on receipt of a complaint about any incident/accident reported due to the involvement of animals (stray/wild/pet or deserted): "(a) On receipt of information regarding accident due to stray/wild animal, the SHO shall get a DDR recorded without any undue delay. (b) The police officer shall verify the claim made and record statements of witnesses and prepare the site plan and summary. (c) A copy of the above report be forwarded to the claimant. (d) The above report be furnished within a period of 30 days of receipt of such information. The Directors General of Police of the respective States are directed to issue appropriate instructions to the Authorities in this regard."
Cause Title: Rajwinder Kaur and Anr. v. State Of Haryana And Ors. & other 192 Writ Petitions [CWP-22904-2016 & Ors.]
