Orissa High Court: In a Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) filed by an advocate under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India over the death of a child due to an attack from street dogs sought directions to check and control the roaming dogs within human inhabitants, and protect human lives and award a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs to the family of the deceased child. A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Dr. B.R. Sarangi* and Murahari Sri Raman, J., allowed the petition and directed the defendant to pay Rs. ten lakhs as compensation to the father of the deceased.
FACTUAL MATRIX
The deceased child while playing by the side of his house was attacked by four stray dogs furiously. T he attack was so furious that within 2 to 3 minutes the child died, and the people around could not rescue the child.
The Petitioner filed the present PIL contending that serious accidents are caused by frequent roaming of dogs in the city and therefore it should be checked. The petitioner alleged the negligence of the State and the parents lost their only child and suffered mental agony, hence, a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs should be awarded.
The Municipal Corporation contended that after the incident, it undertook Animal Birth Control programme and, there was no provision under the Odisha Municipal Act, 1950, (‘OMA’) and/or any other statute for payment of any compensation in case of such incident, but due to the sympathy towards this unfortunate event, they provided a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.
ANALYSIS
Justice Sarangi stated that “the death of the only child caused mental agony to the parents and the mother of the child, was the witness to the situation, imprinted the incident in her brain and has been shedding tears from her eyes which have not dried till date. The feelings of the parents for losing their only child because of attack by the street dogs cannot be measured in terms of money.”
The Court on perusal of Article 21 noted that it mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life and liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Referring to the Sections 287 and 288 of OMA which confers power on the council to destroy stray pigs or dogs to prevent it from becoming a nuisance, the Court noted, that the death of the child was caused due to the negligence and the Municipal Authorities paid the compensation of Rs. 50,000/-., washed their hands and are sitting tight without taking any remedial measure, which is very painful. The Court cited State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan Tale, (1983) 3 SCC 387 wherein, it was held that Right to Life, enshrined in Article 21 means something more than survival or animal existence. Further, the Court referred to a catena of Judgments wherein, a similar view was taken by the Court. The Court also referred to Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 2 SCC 549, where it was held that right to live guaranteed in any civilised society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter.
Hence, on considering Article 21, the Court said that the right to life with human dignity is the prime consideration and the State should ensure this to the citizens by providing ample protection and without the same, it’s clear that the State and its bodies failed in their duty, outlined in the Constitution.
Regarding ‘negligence’, the Court referred to various authorities wherein, the meaning of the terms was discussed by the Court. The Court referred to M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, (2001) 8 SCC 151, wherein ir was defined that negligence in common parlance means and implies failure to exercise due care, expected of a reasonable prudent person. It is a breach of duty and negligence in law ranging from inadvertence to shameful disregard of the safety of others. On applying the meaning of negligence to the case at hand, the Court said that adequate precautions were not taken by the Puri Municipality for the maintenance of the street dogs and Municipal Authorities failed in the discharge of their statutory duties as enshrined in the OMA and hence, they cannot absolve themselves from the liability to pay compensation contending that there is no provision for the same in OMA. Therefore, the Court held that the State and its instrumentalities are liable to pay compensation in the present case.
On the question of deciding the quantum of compensation in light of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 SCC OnLine Mad 1479 the Court said that the mathematical calculation was not applicable to the present case because it is only meant for the death caused in motor vehicle accidents but not in the case where the authorities are negligent of their conduct and not discharging their statutory duty assigned to them.The Court referred to D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416 wherein it was observed that that punishing the offender alone does not comfort the victim’s family much and the civil action for damages is a very lengthy judicial process and thus, monetary compensation is a useful and often the most effective way to ease the family’s pain.
The Court said that the statutory responsibility for the cleanliness of the town and the management of stray dogs and pigs is rested with the Municipal Authorities.
The Court referred to the case of Shobha Ram Rajwa Ram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh1, wherein, the Chhattisgarh High Court while delivering the judgment made a reference to a suo motu PIL regarding the death of a girldue to rabies, wherein a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs was given to the mother of the victim.
The Court further added that, similarly, in the case of Yusub v. State of Karnataka2, the Karnataka HighCourt directed a compensation of 10 lakhs along with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of death of the minor son.
Therefore, the Court held that the father of the deceased child is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs due to the death caused by the street dog’s bite. Accordingly, the Court directed the Municipal Authority to pay the said amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of judgment, failing which an interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of passing of the judgment will be added.
[Bibhuti Charan Mohanty v. State of Odisha, 2023 SCC OnLine Ori 6660, Judgment dated: 13-12-23]
*Judgment authored by: Acting Chief Justice Dr. B.R. Sarangi
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner- Advocate R. Swain, Advocate B. Nayak, Advocate P.K. Mohanty
For the Respondent- Additional Government Advocate D. Mohanty, Senior Advocate P.K. Mohanty, Advocate P.K. Pasayat, Advocate D.N. Mohapatra, Advocate J. Mohanty, Advocate P.K. Nayak, Advocate S.N. Dash and Advocate P. Mohanty
Buy Constitution of India HERE
1. Writ Petition PIL No. 24 of 2017
2. Writ Petition 110352 of 2019.