The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that the state cannot be held responsible for every accident caused by a stray animal.

It thus denied any direction to the State to grant compensation regarding the same in one such case.

The Court stated that compensating accidents affected by stray animals cannot be State's strict liability.

Holding this, it said in the judgement:  

"If stray bulls roam the village, then the villagers owe a duty to keep themselves safe against any injuries that may be caused by the stray animals coming in the way of commuters all of a sudden and especially in the dark hours. It [State] owed no duty of care and caution. The State is also not responsible for every fatal accident caused by a stray animal…"

High Court's remark came out in a case in which the petitioner herein's husband fell to death after being hit by a bull strayed on the village road.   

Pertaining to his demise in the said accident, the family sought compensation from the Municipal Corporation, Fatehabad along with the State of Haryana.

The Court after considering the submissions noted that the State Government has already been offered ₹1 lakh under its policy as compensation for death due to injury caused by a bull.

As far as Municipal Corporation, Fatehabad is concerned, the accident spot didn't fall within the limits.

Therefore the Court was of the opinion that the State wasn't obligated to maintain the roads or farmlands of an area that did not fall within its jurisdiction.

When, during the arguement, one of the Leraned Cousel cited ruling in Sushma Rani v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2016(2) RCR (Civil) 289, the Court distinguished it from the facts of the prersent case as in the said judgement compensation was granted in an accident caused by collision with a stray bull on a road and the accident had occurred at a place falling within the urban area and within the territorial jurisdiction of the municipality concerned.

Furthermore, the Court pointed out one determinatory factor of the case which was the negligence on part of the deceased for not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident and thus acquiring serious brain injuries.

Considering all of the above, the Court thus concluded:

"It can safely be inferred that the deceased did not exercise reasonable care to protect himself even when the law enjoins motorcyclists to wear protective gear when a vehicle is in motion. This is a contributing factor this Court has taken into consideration on principles of res ispa loquitur, there is no indication in the DDR or in the writ petition to the contrary,"

It so thus dismissed the petition.

The judgement has been delivered by Justice RAJIV NARAIN RAINA on 03-12-2019.

Read Judgement Here:

 

Share this Document :

Picture Source :