1995 Supreme(Gau) 219

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
M.Sharma, J.
Chairman, Assam State Electricity Board; Assam State Electricity Board; State of Mizoram -Appellant
Versus
Md.Sunahar Ali Laskar -Respondent
First Appeal No. 37 of 1988, Misc Appeal (First) No. 136 of 1988 and First Appeal No. 24 of 1989
Decided On : 22-09-1995

The owner of a dangerous animal is liable for any damage caused by the animal, even if the owner did not know that the animal was dangerous.

Headnote:

TORT - LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY DANGEROUS ANIMALS - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACT, 1948 - SECTION 13 - INTERPRETATION - NOTICE UNDER SECTION 80 OF CPC - SUFFICIENCY - EXECUTION OF DECREE AGAINST EMPLOYEES OF A CORPORATE BODY - MAINTAINABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit against the Chairman of the Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB) and other officers, as well as the State of Mizoram, claiming compensation for the death of his domesticated elephant due to electrocution at an unprotected transmission station maintained by the ASEB and transmitting electricity to Mizoram. The ASEB officers contested the suit, but the ASEB as a corporate body was not made a party. The trial court decreed the suit against both the defendants, and the ASEB and the State of Mizoram appealed.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the notice issued to the defendants under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was sufficient and complied with the requirements of the provision. The court also held that the non-joinder of the ASEB as a corporate body did not vitiate the suit since the ASEB had acted through its officers, particularly the Chairman, who contested the suit and the appeal. The court further held that the elephant belonged to a dangerous class of animals and that the plaintiff's negligence in leaving the elephant loose for the whole night contributed to its death. Therefore, the plaintiff could not claim entire compensation for the damage.

Issues: 1. Whether the notice issued to the defendants under section 80 of CPC was sufficient and complied with the requirements of the provision? 2. Whether the non-joinder of the ASEB as a corporate body vitiated the suit? 3. Whether the elephant belonged to a dangerous class of animals? 4. Whether the plaintiff's negligence in leaving the elephant loose for the whole night contributed to its death?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the notice issued to the defendants under section 80 of CPC was sufficient and complied with the requirements of the provision because it fulfilled the criteria of a notice under the said provision and its contents bore the compliance of the provision under section 80 CPC. 2. The court held that the non-joinder of the ASEB as a corporate body did not vitiate the suit because the ASEB had acted through its officers, particularly the Chairman, who contested the suit and the appeal. 3. The court held that the elephant belonged to a dangerous class of animals because it was a domesticated or tamed animal that had been reclaimed from the wild state and that even after being tamed, its nature often asserted itself. 4. The court held that the plaintiff's negligence in leaving the elephant loose for the whole night contributed to its death because it was the bounded responsibility of the owner/incharge to take reasonable caution while the elephant in question was let loose in the jungle and as a reasonable man ought to have foreseen that the act or omission might cause danger to the animal or to some of the persons.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal of the State of Mizoram and partly allowed the appeal of the ASEB. The court held that the ASEB was liable to pay 50% of the total compensation amount to the plaintiff, as the plaintiff's negligence contributed to the elephant's death.