Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the appellant/defendant has knocked on the doors of this Court by way of the present appeal.

7. Ms. Suneita Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant avers that the impugned judgment is vitiated with legal infirmities and errors of law resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice. She further submits that there is no finding on record holding the MCD or its officials negligent in performing the statutory duty vested with it. According to her, the Trial Court failed to consider that the suit was liable to be dismissed due to the non-joinder of necessary parties as the owner of the stray cattle and area SHO was not made a party, neither there was any evidence led with respect to the outcome of the FIR registered. Moreover, learned counsel avers that there is no allegation or evidence placed before the Trial Court to the effect that any complaint was made to the corporation regarding the problem of stray cattle in the area of Sardar Colony, Rohini, and that any negligence was shown by the corporation in taking action against it. Furthermore, it is submitted by the learned counsel that before the Trial Court, the appellant/defendant submitted a report on the impounding of stray cattle by the MCD in 2008-09, showing that a total of 3116 stray cattle were impounded from different parts of the Civil lines zone. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, it is clear on the face of the record that the appellant/defendant was not negligent in performing their statutory duty and the Trial Court has gravely erred in opining otherwise.

14. The Trial Court while adjudicating upon the contention that whether the deceased died due to an attack by stray cattle, held that the respondents/plaintiffs have successfully substantiated their case that the deceased had died due to a fatal attack by stray cattle. While arriving at the aforenoted conclusion, the Trial Court mainly relied upon the evidence adduced through the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 which were further corroborated by PW3, who confirmed the postmortem report exhibited as Ex.PW3/1, reflecting that the injuries described by PW1 and PW2 were consistent with the facts. Additionally, PW4, Dr. Kuldeep Singh, who examined the victim on the date of the incident, shed light on the nature of the injuries in document Mark X-1, which confirmed that the deceased was attacked by a cow.

16. Furthermore, the Trial Court also observed that the appellant/defendant did not aver that the location of the accident was outside its jurisdiction and was under other civic bodies. The Court was of the opinion that the location of the incident fell within the jurisdiction of the appellant/defendant as was also confirmed through the affidavit of Dr. Jagvir Singh, Veterinary Officer of the MCD, who got deposed as DW1. The affidavit by DW1 and the reports presented by the appellant/defendant Digitally Signed Digitally Signed Signing Date:26.12.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA 16:33:15 8 KUMAR KAURAV of impounding of stray cattle led the Trial Court to conclude that the accident site fell under the MCD's Rohini Zone, thereby indicating the existence of the duty to ensure that the stray cattle are deterred from roaming on public streets.

30. The Trial Court also rightly opined that the appellant/defendant, despite contesting the facts, failed to disprove the existence of statutory duty and obligation on the corporation to maintain public safety by controlling Digitally Signed Digitally Signed Signing Date:26.12.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA 16:33:15 19 KUMAR KAURAV stray animals and restraining them from roaming on public streets. More importantly, the Trial Court unerringly inferred that the reports of impounding of stray cattle in the year 2008, adduced by the appellant/defendant, further, corroborated the imputation of negligence on their part, indicating an indisputable duty in ensuring stray cattle are dissuaded from roaming on public street.