The main legal point established is the strict liability of animal keepers, including mahouts, for damages caused by dangerous animals, such as elephants, under English Law.

Varghese Kalliath, J.

These kinds of cases are rare. Appellants before us are the mahouts of an elephant by name Sectharaman. The animal belongs to Cochin Devaswom Board. On 29-5-1986, at about 7-30 a.m., the wife of the first plaintiff late Rajeswari Thampuran, the mother of the other plaintiffs who was a devotee of Sri Poornathrayeesa Temple, Tripunithura, went to the temple to offer prayers. She entered the temple from the western gopuram of the temple. While returning from the temple, she saw the elephant standing on the northern side of the Dcepasthambam. She asked defendants 2 and 3 - appellants before us - whether she could proceed further. The mahouts made affirmative gesture and so she moved. The elephant suddenly approached her violently, knocked down and thrust its tusk in her body on the right side of her abdomen. It caused fatal and severe injuries on her. She was taken to the hospital where she succumbed to the injury.

2. Admittedly, the elephant belongs to the first defendant Devaswom and c'cl jndants 2 and 3 are the mahouts. The mahouts are keeping the elephant and they are the immediate keepers of the animal-elephant - while Devaswom the owner of the elephant is the mediate keeper of the animal.

3. Though several contentions have been raised by defendants, the court below repelled all these con ten lions and found that both the Devaswom and the mahouts of the elephant are jointly and severally liable to pay damages. The court below assessed the dumaics on the evidence placed before it and found that the reasonable compensation under the circumstances of the case can be put at Rs.One Lakh. As such, a decree making the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.One Lakh was passed.

4. The first defendant-Devaswom has not filed an appeal. Defendants 2 and 3 one have filed this appeal. They have no serious contention regarding the facts which led to the tragic death of the wife of the first plaintiff, the mother of other plaintiffs, and also the reasonableness of the quantum of compensation determined by the court below. Perhaps, considering the entire facts and circumstances, the first defendant thought that the decree passed by the court below is unassailable and so, being a public body, the Devaswom did not file an appeal. In these circumstances, the only question that remains to be considered by this court is as to the liability of defendants 2 and 3 - the appellants before us. The appellants also did not question the reasonableness of the quantum of compensation.

5. As regards the question of general liability, the English Law is well settled. The English Law has been adopted and applied by the High Court of Madras as well as by the High Court of Travancore. In 1LR 35 Mad. 708 (Vedapiiratti v. Koppan Nair), a Division Bench of the Madras High Court considered the extent of liability for damages done by an elephant. In this decision, the court found Hit the elephant belongs to that class of animals included in ferae nature (dangerous class of animals ). It is staled in the judgment that it can be laid down as a rule of law that in India elephant belongs to a dangerous class of animals.

6. Under the English Law, the keeper of an animal is strictly liable, independently of negligence, for damage done by the animal if (a) the animal was ferae naturae (i.e. belonged to a dangerous species) (b) the animal was mansuetae naturae (i.e. did not belong to a dangerous species) and he knew of its vicious characteristics. This principle has been adopted as the law that has to be followed in India also. A dangerous species is defined as a species which is not commonly domesticated in the British Islands and whose fully grown animals normally have such characteristic that they are likely, unless restrained, to cause severe damage or that any damage they may cause is likely to be severe. In Halsbury'sLawsof England, Vol.1, page 377, it is noted That nothing can be more natural to an elephant at large