Dismissed

State of Rajasthan v. Ramgopal S/O Late Shri Ramchandra

Rajasthan HC23 Apr 2024CW/1901/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an award by the Permanent Lok Adalat, the High Court dismissed the petition. The court held that the PLA correctly exercised jurisdiction under the Legal Services Authorities Act to award compensation for death due to stray cattle, citing municipal failure in public conservancy duties.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, and the award of Rs. 3,00,000/ by the Permanent Lok Adalat was allowed.

State of Rajasthan Vs Ramgopal S/O Late… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1901/2019

¶3

State of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Kota.

¶4

Nagar Nigam, Kota Through Its Commissioner, Kota, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ramgopal S/o Late Shri Ramchandra, Aged About 65 Years, R/o 547-B Santoshi Nagar, Kota, Rajasthan.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) :

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Order

¶12

23/04/2024

¶13

Aggrieved by the award dated 02.11.2018 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Kota (for short, “the PLA”), the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶14

By passing the award dated 02.11.2018, the PLA has allowed the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 22(B) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act of 1987”) and granted a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs Only) to the respondent on account of death of his wife, caused by cow.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no evidence was produced by the complainant before the PLA that the cattle was stray or a pet or a domestic animal, therefore, in absence of such evidence, the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant

¶16

[CW-1901/2019]

¶17

(2 of 7)

¶18

before the PLA was not maintainable. Counsel submits that for redressal of his grievance, the complainant was having liberty of filing a suit under the provisions of Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (for short, “the Act of 1855”). Counsel submits that as per Section 18 of the Act of 1855, a suit was maintainable in the matter, but instead of availing the said remedy, the complainant has approached the PLA by way of filing the complaint. Counsel submits that overlooking the above material aspect of the matter, the PLA has allowed the complaint filed by the respondent and further erred in granting compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs Only) to the respondent. Counsel submits that the deceased was a woman and her age was 55 years at the time of the alleged incident. Counsel submits that looking to the work/job and age of the deceased, the complainant was not entitled to get the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, hence, under these circumstances interference of this Court is warranted.

¶19

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record as well as the award dated 02.11.2018.

¶20

Before deciding the controversy involved in this petition, it would be gainful to extract the provisions contained under Section 22 A(b) of the Act of 1987 which reads as under:-

¶21

“Section 22A (b):-“public utility service" means any-

¶22

(i) transport service for the carriage of passengers or goods by air, road or water; or

¶23

(ii) postal, telegraph or telephone service; or

¶24

(iii) supply of power, light or water to the public by any establishment; or

¶25

(3 of 7)

¶26

[CW-1901/2019]

¶27

(iv) system of public conservancy or sanitation;

¶28

¶29

(v) service in hospital or dispensary; or

¶30

(vi) insurance service,

¶31

and includes any service which the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may, in the public interest, by notification, declare to be a public utility service for the purposes of this Chapter”)

¶32

Perusal of the aforesaid clause clearly indicates that under the system of public conservancy or sanitation, the petitioner is a welfare State, who is under an obligation to provide the same to the utmost satisfaction of the public. The petitioner being a welfare State has totally failed to provide the petitioner proper conservancy and sanitation inasmuch as the stray animals are often seen on roads, as they get the eatables and garbage lying on the roads/pavements which they consume. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to keep the stray bulls and cows off the road, which has resulted into number of accidents, as has been occurred in the instant matter. The controversy involved in this petition has already been set at rest by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat in the case of Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs. Dhanna Ram & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ petition No.971/2024 , decided on 20.02.2024 wherein it has been held in para Nos.9 to 16 as under:-

¶33

“9. In the present case, since it is factually not disputed that the incident had taken place on account of a stray Bull and Cow hitting Smt. Santosh Devi who succumbed to the injuries suffered by her, this Court is of the view that the petitioner-Municipal Corporation, Bikaner has

¶34

[CW-1901/2019]

¶35

(4 of 7)

¶36

failed to render its services and duties as mandated by law and expected of them.

¶37

Learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Bikaner has taken note of the reply filed by the respondents (petitioners herein) and thereafter on 16.05.2023 a proposal given by the petitioners (private respondents herein) was submitted to the respondents (petitioners herein), however, the same was rejected by them and it was taken note of by the Permanent Lok Adalat vide its order sheet dated 06.06.2023. In these circumstances the learned Permanent Lok Adalat taking recourse to the provisions of subsection 7 and 8 of Section 22-C decided the application preferred by the private respondents. Section 22-C of the Act of 1987 speaks about the cognizance of the cases of Permanent Lok Adalat. For brevity, sub-section 5, 6, 7, & 8 of Section 22-C are reproduced as under:

¶38

“(5) The Permanent Lok Adalat shall, during conduct of conciliation proceedings under subsection (4), assist the parties in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute in an independent and impartial manner.

¶39

(6) It shall be the duty of every party to the application to cooperate in good faith with the Permanent Lok Adalat in conciliation of the dispute relating to the application and to comply with the direction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to produce evidence and other related documents before it.

¶40

(7) When a Permanent Lok Adalat, in the aforesaid conciliation proceedings, is of opinion that there exist elements of settlement in such proceedings which may be acceptable to the parties, it may formulate the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute and give to the parties concerned for their observations and in case the parties reach at

¶41

(5 of 7)

¶42

[CW-1901/2019]

¶43

an agreement on the settlement of the dispute, they shall sign the settlement agreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award in terms

¶44

thereof and furnish a copy of the same to each of the parties concerned.

¶45

(8) Where the parties fail to reach at an agreement under sub-section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the dispute.”

¶46

A bare perusal of sub-section 5 to 8 of Section 22C makes it clear that the Permanent Lok Adalat during the conduct of conciliation proceedings shall make endeavor to arrive at a settlement in such proceedings and if the settlement is not arrived at, then recourse to sub-section 8 shall be taken and the matter will be decided by the Permanent Lok Adalat (if the dispute does not relate to any offence).

¶47

The Permanent Lok Adalat has taken all steps for fruitful conciliation of the matter and since the settlement could not be arrived at, the recourse to sub-clause (8) of Section 22-C of the Act of 1987 has been resorted to. This Court is of the view that since the petitioners have failed to discharge their duties for removal of the garbage and eatables from the streets resulting into the stray animals wandering on the streets, the Permanent Lok Adalat had the jurisdiction in the wake of Section 22A (b) (iv) of the Act of 1987 to deal with the matter and has correctly adjudicated the application preferred by the private respondents.

¶48

In this view of the matter, the Permanent Lok Adalat has rightly taken into consideration the purport of Section 22-C of the Act of 1987 and has correctly decided the matter.

¶49

[CW-1901/2019]

¶50

(6 of 7)

¶51

This Court also takes note of the fact that the basic duty of the petitioner-Municipal Corporation to upkeep the system of public conservancy and sanitation is not being performed properly giving rise to the fact that stray animals are seen in every nook and corner of the cities creating havoc on the passer-by resulting into incidents taking place on daily basis. It is high time when a recourse, as has been taken by the Permanent Lok Adalat, is resorted to by awarding compensation to the persons who have suffered injuries and deaths in such cases. The stringent action of fastening the liability on the Municipal Corporation to pay the compensation in such cases will be helpful in preventing such accidents in future and will force the officials to discharge their duties sincerely and faithfully.

¶52

In similar circumstances, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur had also rejected the writ petition bearing No.25944/2018 (Gram Panchayat Indrapura Vs. Kajodmal & Ors.) arising out of the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat vide its order dated 30.11.2018. 16. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat awarding Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs only) as compensation vide its judgment and award dated 02.08.2023. The petitioner may recover the compensation awarded by the Permanent Lok Adalat from the persons/officers who were negligent and have failed to perform their duties as mandated in law for preservation and maintenance of public conservancy or sanitation.”

¶53

Since, the controversy involved in this petition has already been set at rest at the Principal Seat vide order dated 20.02.2024, while dealing with all the objections taken by the learned counsel

¶54

[CW-1901/2019]

¶55

(7 of 7)

¶56

for the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, this Court finds no valid reason to take a different view.

¶57