Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sushma Rani vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 24 February, 2016
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
KUMAR MANOJ
CWP No.23932 of 2015 #1#
2016.02.29 16:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.23932 of 2015
Date of Order: 24.02.2016
Sushma Rani
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and Ors.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Addl.A.G, Punjab.
Mr. P.P. Chahar, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. J.S. Toor, Advocate for UT Chandigarh.
Mr.Vishwajit Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.3.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J
The petitioner, a housewife, has prayed for
compensation for the death of her husband Vidya Bhushan,
killed by a stray bull on 01.02.2014, when he was going to the
construction site of his house on his moped No. PB-48-C-2067.
Deceased Vidya Bhushan was taken to the Civil Hospital, Mandi
Gobindgarh in an ambulance by the neighbour, where he
succumbed to the injuries caused by the bull.
The petitioner, who is now left with her 18 years old
daughter, studying in 12th class, alleged to be at the mercy of her
relations, moved an application for compensation to the
respondents and ultimately had to file a writ petition bearing
CWP No. 5488 of 2015, which was disposed of on 25.3.2015 by
CWP No.23932 of 2015 #2#
this Court with the following observations:
"Without going into the merits of the case or
commenting thereon, the present petition is
disposed of with directions to The Deputy
Commissioner, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab
and The Municipal Corporation through its
Executive Officer, Mandi Gobindgarh, Disrict
Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab, respondents No. 2 and 3
respectively to consider and decide the applications
of the petitioner dated 21.01.2015 (Annexures P-3
and P-4 respectively) within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order.
In case the claim of the petitioner is accepted, the
consequential benefits, if any, be released to her
within a further period of two months. In case the
claim of the petitioner is not to be accepted, a well-
reasoned and speaking order be passed and
conveyed to her forthwith."
Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh
Sahib passed the order on 23.7.2015, the relevant portion of
which reads as under:
"That I have thoroughly examined the case and
explored all the possibilities available in this case.
The petitioner has alleged that the death of her
husband was due to injuries caused by a bull. As
per the police report, the person has been killed in
an accident with a bull. Though it is one of the
duties of the Municipal Committee to take care of
such stray animals but no provision is available in
Municipal Act, 1911 to provide compensation to the
family of the deceased if any such incident occurs
CWP No.23932 of 2015 #3#
Also, it is pertinent to mention that the case of
granting compensation to the deceased in such
cases is not covered under any rules or policies of
the Government of Punjab. The provisions of the
Chief Minister Relief Fund also do not cover such
type of cases. Also no compensation can be
provided to the family of the deceased by the Red
Cross Society, Fatehgarh Sahib as the case is not
covered under the norms of the society. The
deceased could have been compensated, had he
taken any insurance to cover accidental death in
such accidents. The petitioner has not mentioned
anything to this effect, therefore, it cannot be
commented upon.
The husband of the Applicant died in though an
extremely unfortunate & tragic accident but in the
absence of any provision/policy in Government to
grant compensation in such accidental death, no
compensation can be given to the family of the
deceased person.
In view of the above, I kamaldeep Singh Sangha,
IAS, Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib decline
the application date 21.01.2015 filed by the
Applicant (Annexure P-3 with the CWP)."
The petitioner has again approached this Court
seeking compensation. Notice was issued by this Court not only
to the respondents but to the State of Haryana as well to find out
as to whether any provision has been made by the State of
Haryana for compensating persons like the petitioner, in case of
injury/death by a stray cattle/animal.
Learned counsel for the state of Haryana has
produced a Notification dated 27th April, 2007 notifying the
CWP No.23932 of 2015 #4#
Haryana Municipal (Registration and Proper Control of Stray
Animals) Bye-laws 2006 in which "cattle pound" has been
defined in clause (e) of para 2 of the Bye-laws, which means an
enclosure where all types of stray animals are kept after being
impounded. Stray animals have been defined in clause (j) of
para 2 of the Bye-laws, which means an ownerless animal (male-
female) as defined in clause (b) of section 2 found straying
within the municipal limits; and clause (b) of para 2 of Bye-laws
defines "animal", which means any he/she buffalo, horse, camel,
cow, calf, bull, pony, donkey, goat, sheep, pig, elephant, neal
gayen, deer etc. Para 10 of the Bye-laws further provides that all
the revenue collected by way of registered/renewal fee and
penalty charges shall be used for the following purposes,
namely:
(a) for maintenance of cattle pound;
(b) for payment of compensation to the victims
of stray cattle;
(c) for payment of premium for third party
insurance of registered animals; and
(d) cost of identification and veterinary health
care of stray animals.
In so far as the State of Punjab is concerned, a short
reply by way of a short affidavit dated 06.1.2016 of the Director-
cum-Special Secretary Local Government, Punjab, Chandigarh
has been filed stating that though the Department of Local
Government, Punjab has issued bye-laws, 2006 regarding stray
animals but no provision has been made for compensation in
CWP No.23932 of 2015 #5#
case of accidental death by the stray animals.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to
Section 323 (4) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976,
which says that "any animal found straying as aforesaid may be
removed by an officer or employee of the Corporation or by any
police officer to a pound. It is submitted that post-mortem report
of deceased Vidya Bhushan and the police report leaves no
doubt about the manner in which the death of Vidya Bhushan
has occurred. Learned counsel has referred to the judgments of
Delhi High Court titled Shakuntala Vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi
and another, 2010(7) RCR (Civil) 2397, Delhi High Court,
Parmeshwar Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Passed
in W.P (C) 6396 of 2010, decided on 30.8.2013 and a judgment
of this Court reported as Parminderjit Kaur and another Vs.
State of Punjab and others, 2015 (2) PLR 693.
Learned counsel for the respondents did not cite any
judgment to deny the right of the petitioner to claim
compensation on the death of her husband Vidya Bhushan
except for submitting that the petitioner may ask for
compensation by filing civil suit as disputed questions can not
be decided in writ petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
examined the available record.
The deceased Vidya Bhushan was stated to be 54
years of age. He has left behind his widow, who is housewife
CWP No.23932 of 2015 #6#
and a daughter of 18 years, studying in 12th class. There is no
other earning member in the family.
According to the police report, the death had
occurred because the stray bull hit Vidya Bhushan and as per
the post-mortem report, deceased Vidya Bhushan suffered as
many as 16 injuries. He had multiple rib fractures on both sides,
which were pushed inside. The Court is, thus, satisfied that the
death of Vidya Bhushan has been triggered with the attack of
stray bull. The earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, was
simply disposed of with a direction to the District Authorities to
consider and decide the application of the petitioner for
compensation but her application was dismissed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib, who has admitted in his order
dated 23.7.2015 that it is one of the duties of the Municipal
Committee to take care of such stray animals but no provision is
available in Municipal Act, 1911 to provide compensation to the
family of the deceased if any such incident occurs. He also
observed therein that grant of compensation to the family of the
deceased in such cases is not covered under any rules or policies
of the Government of Punjab. The provisions of the Chief Minister
Relief Fund also do not cover such type of cases and no
compensation can be provided to the family of the deceased by
the Red Cross Society, Fatehgarh Sahib as the case is not covered
under the norms of the society. Rather, it is observed that the
deceased could have been compensated, had he taken any
insurance to cover accidental death in such accidents. Except for
CWP No.23932 of 2015 #7#
expressing sympathy with the family of the deceased for the
unfortunate & tragic accident, nothing else was given by the
respondent-State to the petitioner in the name of compensation.
The Court would deal with this aspect in the later part
but as regards question of compensation is concerned. In
Shakuntala's case (supra), the deceased was a fruit vendor,
carried on his trade from a roadside "Redi/Thela" (hand-cart).
On the fateful day, he was selling fruits, when two fighting bulls
came by and in the ensuing melee he fell, got entangled
between the fighting bulls and was badly mauled. He was
shifted to the hospital but finally succumbed to the injuries,
which, as per postmortem report, were possible by assault of
bull. Hon'ble Delhi High Court on the basis of the inquest report
and post-mortem report, which established the case on facts that
the death had occurred because of the attack by the bull, held
the Municipal Corporation, Delhi negligent as it did not ensure
proper supervision of the area, to avoid the menace of stray
cattle by which such kind of accident could have been
prevented, saving the life of a human being, held it liable to pay
compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs.
In Parmeshwar's case (supra), deceased, who was
12 years of age, was sitting on the stairs near his residence when
two wild undomesticated bulls appeared and began fighting.
Though, the deceased tried to move towards his house to save
himself but got entangled in the fight and was grievously hurt.
He was taken to the hospital but at last succumbed to his injuries.
CWP No.23932 of 2015 #8#
The Court awarded `7.57 lacs on account of death of boy aged
12 years because there was no denial to the factual incident.
In Parminderjit Kaur's case (supra), an Engineer
working in Irrigation Department standing along with his friend
outside his office, was hit by stray animal from the back and
suffered grievous injury. He was taken to the hospital, where he
was declared dead. The court had found that as per Section 182
(2) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, any animal found
picketed, tethered or straying on any public street without the
permission of the committee may be removed to a pound by any
officer or servant of the committee or by a police officer. No
such effort was made to take control of stray animal, who had
taken life of a human being. Consequently, this Court awarded
`10 lacs with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the petition
till the date of payment leaving it open to the petitioner to
approach the court for any sum in excess of what was assessed
by this Court.
Facts of this case are not different from the facts of the
cases, which have been relied upon by the petitioner because in all the three cases mentioned hereinabove, death had occurred due to the attack by a stray animal i.e bull and the inquest report and the post-mortem report both have proved without any doubt that the petitioner's husband had passed away only because of the injuries, suffered by the bull. The deceased had left behind his widow, who is a housewife and a daughter, who is studying and has to be got married also and there is no one to look after CWP No.23932 of 2015 #9# the family except the sole bread earner, who was a small financer and has been killed because of the negligence of the Municipal Committee, Fatehgarh Sahib.
Thus, in the facts and circumstances of this case, and taking into account the fact that it was/is the duty of respondent No.3 to keep public places free from the menace of stray animals and as a precious life has been lost, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the Municipal Corporation (respondent No.3) should pay compensation of `10 lacs to the petitioner with 9% interest from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization of the amount. It is ordered that the amount of compensation shall be paid by the Municipal Corporation/respondent No.3 within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. While departing, the State of Punjab is also directed to at least frame a Policy for compensating the persons, who suffers injuries or are killed by stray animals, roaming around on the streets, so that such like cases could be decided by the respondents themselves.
Petition stands allowed.
February 24, 2016 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) manoj JUDGE