The principle of strict liability applies to injuries caused by dangerous animals, making the owner liable regardless of negligence.

JUDGMENT :

(C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.)

1. The 1^st defendant in O.S. No.122 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Sub Judge, Kottayam is the appellant. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial court).

2. Originally, the suit was filed by one Vincent, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained when an elephant named Bastin Vinayashankar, owned by the 1^st defendant, attacked him and inflicted serious injuries to him. Thereafter, during the pendency of the suit, Vincent died and accordingly his widow and minor children were impleaded as additional plaintiffs 2 to 4.

3. According to the plaintiffs, Vincent, who was an ardent devotee of the 5^th defendant-Kuttikkattu Temple, took part in the procession of the temple on 24.4.2008, as demanded by the office bearers of the temple. As demanded by them, he along with two other persons mounted the top of the elephant, and at about 4 p.m. when the procession reached near Moolavattom Railway cross, the elephant ran amok. At that time, defendants 2 and 3, who are the mahouts flee away without attempting to control the elephant. The elephant pulled Vincent down, stamped him and beat him with trunk and as a result of which he sustained serious injuries namely, Traumatic Paraplegia, fracture 2^nd lumbar vertebra, Subtrochanteric fracture of right femur, Fracture superior and inferior public rami right side pelvis, Tibial lateral condyle fracture right knee Intra articular and Tibial spine fracture. Immediately he was admitted in Medical College Hospital Kottayam and he was treated as inpatient till 2.6.2008. Because of the injuries sustained in the incident, he had been paralysed and was not in a position to do his day to day affairs without the help of others. Ultimately, he succumbed to the injuries on 11.7.2009. The compensation claimed in the suit was Rs.33,72,000/-. The 4^th respondent is the insurer of the elephant and 5^th respondent is Kuttikkattu Bhagavathi Devaswom.

4. In the written statement, the 1^st defendant contended that Vincent along with his friend who were in an inebriated condition had provoked the elephant by embracing it by its tusk, which panicked the elephant and pushed away the plaintiff. It was at that time, he fell down and sustained injuries. Though the elephant moved little forward, it was controlled by the mahouts. It was further contended that the untoward incident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the victim. The quantum of compensation claimed in the complaint was also challenged in the written statement.

5. The 4^th defendant/ insurer filed written statement admitting that there was valid insurance policy to the elephant. According to them, as per the policy, the total liability for 3^rd party personal injury for one year is Rs.3,00,000/- and for any one accident during the said one year, the liability is only Rs.1,00,000/-.

6. The 5^th defendant would contend that on that day there were 12 processions arranged by the local sub temples and that those processions were under the control of persons from each 'Kara'. Further according to the 5^th defendant, they had no role in the hiring of elephant or in the accident.

7. The evidence in the case consists of oral testimonies of PWs 1 to 4 and DWs 1 to 3, Exhibits A1 to A15 and B1 to B3. After evaluating the evidence on record, the trial court found that Vincent died because of the injuries inflicted by the elephant owned by the 1^st defendant and awarded a compensation of Rs.10,93,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the above decree, the 1^st defendant preferred this appeal.

8. Heard Sri. Arjun Satheesh, the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. George Cherian, the learned senior counsel for the 6^th respondent, Sri. S. Renjit and Sri. T. Venugopal the learned counsel for other respondents.

9. Now, on the basis of the arguments advanced, the point that arises for consideration are the following:

1) Whether the principle of strict liability applies