Chattisgarh High Court
Keshav Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:19181
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2593 of 2019
1 - Keshav Verma S/o Late Tulsiram Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o
Village, Post And Village Panchayat - Rengakatera, Tehsil And District
Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Deputy Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster
Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - The Collector Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.,
District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
4 - Deputy Collector Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon. Chhattisgarh.,
District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
5 - Sarpanch Village Panchayat, Village Post And Village Panchayat
Rengakatera, Tehsil And District Panchayat - Rengakatera, Tehsil And
District Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.04.2025 -2-
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
"10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 24/5/19 (Annexure P-3) and direct that the respondents shall pay compensation amount to the petitioner for monetary and personal loss caused by the death of his daughter being bitten by a rabid/stray dog in the interest of justice.
10.2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the instant case, for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
10.3) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice."
2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 28.03.2015 the daughter of the petitioner namely, Priya Verma, who was aged about four years, was attacked by a stray dog and sustained serious injuries. She was taken to Government Hospital Rajnandgaon, where she was provided preliminary treatment, but looking for no improvement in her health condition, the doctor referred her to a higher centre at Raipur. She succumbed to dog bite injuries on 24.04.2015. On account of the death of his minor daughter due to the attack of the street dog, the petitioner moved an application before respondent No.3 claiming compensation from the government relief fund. Respondent No.3 rejected the claim of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 24.05.2019 for the grant of compensation on the ground that there is no provision under the 3 Revenue Book Circular (RBC) for awarding compensation in a case where the death is caused due to stray dog bite.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that there is a duty cast on the respondents to ensure that humans inhabiting areas are protected from any attack by street / stray dogs. Respondents have failed to discharge this duty and as a result, the minor daughter of the petitioner was attacked by a stray dog causing grievous and serious injuries resulting in her death. Since the respondents failed to curb the menace of stray dogs by taking all possible steps, which amounts to negligence, the petitioner is entitled to compensation. He relies upon the order dated 10.10.2018 of this Court in WPC No.1856/2018, parties being Shobha Ram vs. State of CG & Ors., wherein the Court has allowed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner, whose wife died on account of the attack by the street dog.
4. Learned State Counsel opposing submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the Revenue Book Circular does not allow the State Government to grant compensation for the death due to a stray/street dog bite and hence, the impugned order of respondent No.3 does not call for any interference. There was no negligence on the part of the respondents and therefore, the respondents cannot be made responsible and/or liable to make payment of compensation. Respondents cannot remove all -4- stray dogs from the area. The child was returning alone from the school which resulted in the attack by a stray dog. If some elders were with the child, no such untoward incident would have occurred. Therefore, the respondents are not liable to make payment of compensation to the petitioner.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on the record.
6. In support of pleading that the petitioner's daughter died due to complications of dog bite injuries, the petitioner has annexed relevant medical documents relating to the treatment which was administered to the petitioner's daughter for to dog bite (Annexure P/1) and death certificate. Hence, it is clear from the documents available on the record, which are not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents, that a stray dog had bitten the daughter of the petitioner and she succumbed to dog bite injuries during the course of treatment.
7. Petitioner's application for compensation was rejected by respondent No.3 on the ground that there is no provision under the RBC for awarding compensation due to stray/street dog biting.
8. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation on account of the death of his minor child due to a dog bite.
5
9. Untimely and unnatural death of a child cannot be valued or compensated in terms of money as it is a perennial grief to the parents and other family members and such a loss would surely lead to mental agony and trauma. The agony and suffering of a victim of dog biting are only to be experienced or seen. In the case at hand, the excruciating pain, suffering, mental agony and deprivation of faculties which would have immediately visited that girl child with her encounter with a stray dog, can also easily be envisioned from the medical documents annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P-1.
10. Identical issue came up for consideration before the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in WPC 1856/2018, the parties being Shobha Ram vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. decided on 10.10.2018, and the Co-ordinate Bench referring to various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the writ petition and granted compensation of 10,00,000/- to the petitioner, the husband of the deceased wife, who died due to dog bite. Relevant paragraph of the said order is extracted below for ready reference:-
"24. In view of the above, I deem it appropriate to award compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner minus (-) the amount already paid by the Government to the Hospital where the deceased obtained treatment. Petitioner would, thus, be entitled to a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."-6-
11. The Division Bench of this Court in suo motu public interest litigation bearing WP(PIL) No.24/2017, in reference Court on its own motion (regarding the death of Ku. Divya Verma, D/o Shri Ashok Verma due to rabies) V. State of Chhattisgarh & another, dealing with different facets of the problems of stray dogs and the menace resulting out of confrontation of such animals with human and also other domesticated animals, granted compensation of Rs.10 Lakh to the mother of the victim of dog bite. Relevant portion of the order dated 22.8.2017 is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"For the time being, there will be an order directing the State Government to release to the mother of Ku. Divya Verma an amount of Rs.10 lacs towards compensation, the sufficiency or otherwise of which will be considered by us further during the course of this writ petition. Let payment in terms of this order be made by the Government through appropriate procedure within a period of two weeks from now. The eligibility of the State to appropriate that amount from any other person or establishment is left open."
12. Recently, the Division Bench in a batch of writ appeals filed by the State, the lead case being WA No.409/2020 (State of CG vs. Bhaiya Lal Gond) decided on 28.04.2023, while considering the challenge to the compensation granted by the learned Single Bench for the death caused by rabies infection due to stray dog bites, has observed thus:-
7
"24. Applying the above proposition of law, we are of the opinion that when the death is caused by rabies infection of stray dog bites it would also come under the purview of "strict liability" or "no- fault liability" and interpreting the order of the State which grants gratuitous compensation for death, cripple and injury caused in wild animal attacks can be applied to the incidents of a stray dogs when death is caused by the bite of stray dog.
25.While interpreting the further quantum of compensation by the Welfare State, we deem it appropriate that the said notification which was issued in the year 2015 whereby an amount of Rs. 4lakhs was fixed also needs to be revisited with the passage of time considering the inflation and growing market price index in the Society. Therefore, we direct the State to reconsider such Policy for enhancement of compensation which is granted by letter dt. 12.06.2015. The State may frame fresh policy taking into consideration the price index and other ancillary factors for enhancement of such gratuitous compensation. So far as the given case in hand, considering the facts and the time which has passed-by till date, we deem it proper to grant an ex-gratia payment of Rs.6,50,000 in each case to the dependent family members of victims who have died due to stray dog bites. We further observe that if the family of the victim is entitled to prove the claim for more amount, then in such a case, they have to resort to the fact finding enquiry by proper legal proceedings as laid down by Supreme Court in (2016) 13 SCC 504.
33. To conclude, we direct that (i) the ex-gratia payment to the respondents as per the notification from occurrence of stray dog bite death would be Rs.6,50,000/- and would be paid to the dependent of each victim family within a period of 45 days, failing which, it will carry interest @ 6% per annum;
(ii) Apart from the aforesaid gratuitous payment, the family of the victim would be entitled to claim their right for further compensation, if so advised,which would be dependent on the fact finding enquiry of each individual case ; and (iii) the State would be obliged to give a wide publicity of anti-viral dog bite injection of treatment schedule -8- by way of public posters and advertisements in print media and different means of communication through the health workers."
13. Keeping in mind the above decisions as also considering all the aspects of the matter, particularly that it is not in dispute that the daughter of the petitioner died due to complications of a stray dog bite, I deem it fit to award a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- as ex gratia / compensation to the petitioner. This amount of compensation shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 6% p.a. till the actual payment is made.
14. As an upshot, the writ petition stands allowed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha