1.........

(i) Is the State absolved from the liability to compensate persons whose properties are lost, in the attack by wild animals coming out from the forest?

(ii) Is not the doctrine of strict liability applicable to cases wherein properties have been lost to persons in the attack of wild animals?

2. The respondent herein as plaintiff had approached the Munsiff's Court, Ranni through O.S. No. 187 of 2003 seeking damages of Rs. 90,000/- on account of loss sustained to his properties in the attack of wild animals. The property of the plaintiff is abutting the reserve forest. In the absence of any fencing to the forest, wild animals like wild elephants, deer etc. used to come out from the forest to have frequent visits to the property of the plaintiff, mostly in odd hours. The plaintiff had planted the property with high yielding species of rubber trees and also arecanuts. All the arecanut trees except one were broken/uprooted by the elephants. 40 rubber trees were severely attacked by the elephants and deer and its entire bark were removed thereby making it impossible for the plaintiff to tap the said rubber trees for extracting latex. He had caused to issue a demand notice to the defendants which did not evoke proper response, and hence the suit.

3. The defendants filed a written statement contending that the defendants and the State are not bound to compensate the plaintiff in this particular case. It has been contended that any negligence from the State or its officers has not been specifically pleaded and further that the State and its officers have no control over the wild animals and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any damages.

4. Repelling the contentions resorted to by the defendants, the Munsiff's Court decreed the suit by directing the defendants to pay an amount of Rs. 40,000/- as damages with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court were challenged by the defendants before the District Court, Pathanamthitta through A.S. No. 96 of 2007. The District Court, Pathanamthitta also concurred with the findings rendered by the trial court and dismissed the appeal and, hence this Second Appeal.

5. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) for the appellants, and the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent has opposed this Second Appeal and has pointed out that any substantial question of law is not involved in the matter.

6. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader has argued that the respondent is not entitled to any common-law remedy when there is a statute in force which provides for compensation to such persons who are victims of attack by wild animals, under the name and style “Kerala Rules for payment of Compensation to Victims of Attack by Wild Animals, 1980.” According to him, therefore, the matter involves a substantial question of law.

7. There is no quarrel that in the case of attack by wild animals, the liability on the part of the State and its officers is based on the doctrine of strict liability. The doctrine of strict liability has its origin from the celebrated decision in Rylands vs. Fletcher, (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330, which says:

“If a person brings or accumulates on his land anything which, if it should escape, may cause damage to his neighbours, he does so at his peril. If it does escape and cause damage, he is responsible, however careful he may have been, and whatever precautions he may have taken to prevent damage.”

“We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.”

It was further held:

“But for his act in bringing it there no mischief could have accrued, and it