Stray Dog Bite: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Minimum Rs.10K Compensation Per Tooth Mark, Issues Guidelines To Curb Menace

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has issued a slew of directions to police to expeditiously deal with the cases lodged pertaining to incidents of stray or wild animal menace in Punjab, Haryana & Chandigarh.

In case of stray dog bites, the Court has ordered a minimum compensation of Rs.10,000 per tooth 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 Court clarified that the State shall be primarily responsible to pay compensation with a right to recover the same from the defaulting Agencies/ Instrumentalities of the State and/or the private person.

A batch of 193 cases were decided by the Court pertaining to the incidents involving stray and wild animals in Punjab, Haryana as well as Chandigarh.

Raising concern over rising stay and wild animal menace, Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj observed that,"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."

Guidelines To Police

(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 Bench further directed the Directors General of Police of the respective States  to issue appropriate instructions to the Authorities in this regard.

Committee To Determine Compensation

It also directed Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh admin to constitute a Committee to determine compensation to be paid on account of a claim made with respect to an accident, incident caused due to stray cattle and animal with such definition would include the animals such as cows, bulls, oxen, donkeys, dogs, nilgai, buffaloes etc. and also include the wild, pet and deserted animals as well.

The said Committee shall be comprised of Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District as its Chairperson and shall have the following members:

(a) Superintendent of Police/Deputy Superintendent of Police (Traffic),

(b) Sub Divisional Magistrate of the concerned area,

(c) The District Transport Officer,

(d) Representative of the Chief Medical Officer,

The bench said that that the petitioners, "herein shall, if so advised, file their applications before the aforesaid Committee for grant of compensation alongwith the supporting documents as provided in the respective policies notified by the respective States."

It added that the compensation to be awarded by the Committee for the incidents/accidents pertaining to the death/permanent disability in the respective States shall be as prescribed in the respective State Policies for the claims lodged in the respective States, while in relation to the claims lodged in the UT, Chandigarh, the benefit as extended in the policy of Punjab shall be awarded since the compensation proposed in the said policy is more beneficial.

Application Of Doctrine Of Strict Liability On State

The Court considered Whether the doctrine of strict liability would apply on incidents/ accidents due to stray/wild animals on roads and public streets fastening the liability on the State?

Answering the question the bench said, from the decisions of High Courts and Apex Court it is established that "State as well as its Agencies and Instrumentalities including the National Highway Authority of India have been fastened with the responsibility of keeping and maintaining their streets/roads safe including from the menace of stray/wild animals and stray dogs."

The Court added that the States as well as its Agencies have also been held liable to compensate to the victims or heirs of the victims by holding that the State owed a public duty to safeguard the citizens/residents from the abovesaid menace and having failed to fulfill the said obligations, they cannot be permitted to escape liability by pleading paucity of resources or insufficiency of funds.

"People cannot be left to fend for themselves for a State failure. The rights of the claimants stand further crystallized since the State has been collecting road tax/user fee from the persons using the highways and roads and the Local Bodies are also collecting various types of taxes/fee/cess from the residents and are entitled to levy penalty/fine on the owners who have not been able to impound/keep their animals in chains and/or control," said the Court.

Justice Bhardwaj summarised that 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, said the bench.

Adding that the State will be jointly along with it agencies, or severally liable, the Court said "Hence, the liability of State on the principles of strict liability is well accepted where accidents have occurred due to stray/wild animals. The State is thus liable to compensate on occurrence of such an event."

Claim For Compensation Under Writ Petition

The Court opined that the perusal of the judgements reveals that writ petition may be entertained but it does not rule that compensation can be claimed only by way of a writ petition and no other mean is available.

It added that the jurisdiction and remedy under the common law would always be available to the persons aggrieved to claim compensation. A writ petition is thus not an exclusive jurisdiction and is only an alternate to what should otherwise be the normal procedure. 

Furthermore, the law is well settled that where an alternative remedy is available to a person, such a person is expected to first exhaust his alternative remedies before approaching the writ Court. 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, said the Court.

The Court clarified that 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."

In the light of the above the pleas were disposed of stating that, "All misc. applications including the applications for impleadment of LRs and/or proper/necessary parties, as the case may be, are also disposed of with liberty to the applicants to file the same afresh before the competent Authority/Committee, if so advised, and in accordance with law."

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 231

Title: RAJWINDER KAUR AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Click here to read/download the order.