The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a compensation order passed by the Justice (Rtd.) S. Siri Jagan Committee for an injury sustained when a respondent fell due to a dog's sudden movement. The Court held the Committee had jurisdiction beyond direct bites and no error existed in granting compensation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP(C).16287/19
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 16287 OF 2019
PETITIONER/S:
KULANADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KULANADA.P.O,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN689503.
BY ADVS. V.SETHUNATH SRI.M.AYYOOBUKHAN SRI.V.R.MANORANJAN (MUVATTUPUZHA) SREEGANESH.U
RESPONDENT/S:
2 JUSTIN ALBERT, MANGALATHU HOUSE,WARD NO.VI, PUTHUVAKKAL,PANAGAD MURI, KULANADA.P.O,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689503.
3 THE SECRETARY, JUSTICE (RTD),S.SRI JAGAN COMMITTEE, 1ST FLOOR,UPAD BUILDINGS,PARAMARA ROAD,KOCHI,PIN-682017.
BY ADV SMT.K.REEHA KHADER
WP(C).16287/19
2
OTHER PRESENT:
GP AMMINIKUTTY K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.7.2022, THE COURT ON 5.8.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).16287/19
3
V.G.ARUN, J.
----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No. 16287 of 2019
Dated this the 5th day of August, 2022
JUDGMENT
The stray dog menace and frequent instances of dog attack in Kerala, resulting in grievous injuries and even death in some cases, was brought to the notice of the Honourable Supreme Court during the hearing of a claim for compensation raised by the family of a dog bite victim. On being apprised about the gravity of the situation, the Supreme Court issued Exhibit P4 order, constituting a committee consisting of Justice (Rtd) Siri Jagan, the Law Secretary and the Director of Health Services. The Justice (Rtd.) S.Siri Jagan Committee was authorised to entertain complaints regarding injuries sustained due to dog bites, the nature and gravity of the injury, availability of medicines, the treatment administered, failure of treatment, its cure etc. The Committee was also required to identify the centres/hospitals where anti-rabies vaccines are available free of charge.
reports to the Supreme Court and also started hearing complaints filed by victims of dog bite and related incidents.
WP(C).16287/19
4
The Justice (Rtd.) S.Siri Jagan Committee is empowered only to entertain only complaints relating to dog bite incidents. In the instant case, the second respondent had sustained injuries by falling off his scooter, when a stray dog ran across the road. The said accident cannot be termed as an incident relating to dog bite. Being so, the Committee did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and order compensation. Alternatively, it is contended that the order was passed without affording a reasonable
WP(C).16287/19
5
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and no material was available for the Committee to assess and decide the quantum of compensation.
WP(C).16287/19
6
paragraph 4 of the order, which reads as under;
“ 4. The Secretary of the Kulanada Grama Panchayat stated that on enquiry the incident was found to be true. From 2015-16 onwards ABC programme is being implemented in the Panchayat with the help of the District Panchayat. The Panchayat is not liable to pay any compensation. The quantum claimed is also excessive.”
It is further submitted that a reading of paragraph 5 would show that the Panchayat did not dispute the incident.
“ At this juncture, we are obligated to deal with the first prayer put forth in the interlocutory application Mr. Bigu, learned counsel would submit that unless ex gratia amount is granted, the family is not in a position to sustain itself because the wife was working in the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MNREGS) and the husband in a bus driver and he has two young children Though the prayer has been opposed by Mr. Basant, learned senior counsel with singularity of conviction, we think it apt to direct the respondent-State of Kerala to pay a sum of Rs 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) to the applicant within four weeks hence. We hereby make it clear
WP(C).16287/19
7
that this kind of application shall not be entertained henceforth because we have already constituted a Committee as a fact finding authority and hence, any person intends to avail this kind of remedy has to move the Committee and not directly come to this Court or move the High Court.”
WP(C).16287/19
8
For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE
vgs
WP(C).16287/19
9
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16287/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINDINGS IN CLAIM PETITION NO.102/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE W.P(C)NO.599/2015.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT COMMITTEE.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Justice (Rtd.) S. Siri Jagan Committee had jurisdiction to entertain a compensation claim arising from an accidental fall caused by a stray dog running across the road, despite the Moments
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anupam Tripathi v. Union of India and othersReferred¶6
Anupam Tripathi v. Union of India and others ((2016) 10 SCC 688) · Who else cites this
Kulanada Grama Panchayath
Justine Albert
Justice (RTD) S. Siri Jagan Committee
State of Kerala
V.G. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
