(R.L. Khurana, J.): The respondent, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, a resident of village Rohla, Pargana Bathri, Tehsil Bhatiyat of District Chamba, on 27.3.1989 while going to her cattle- shed for the purpose of feeding her cows, was attacked by a black bear as a result of which she sustained the following injuries :- (i) Loss of complete eye sight (left eye); (ii) Compound fracture of left mandible; (iii)Fracture of nasal bone; (iv) Fracture of right frontal bone, frontal sinus maxillary sinus with very sever facial disfigurement; (v) Fracture both bones left forearm.

2. Consequent upon such injuries, her permanent disability was assessed at 100% by the medical authorities vide certificate Ex. PW-3/A. Under the scheme formulated by the State Government vide notification dated 25.2.1988 (Copy Ex.DB) a relief of Rs. 5,000/- was granted to the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff on 9.12.1991 filed a suit, as an indigent person, for the recovery of damages of Rs. 1, 00,000/- on account of personal injuries sustained by her. It was averred that the Divisional Forest Officer, defendant No. 4, under the scheme for the preservation of wild life, had let loose bears and other protected wild animals in the jungles. Killing of such wild animals is prohibited by the State Government. As a result of attack by the black bear, she suffered grievous injuries and sustained 100% permanent disability. She has spent about Rs. 50,000/- on her medical treatment. Another sum of Rs. 50,000/- would further be required by her for future treatment. In claiming damages, she has averred that she suffered due to the acts of omission and commission of the defendants.

4. The defendants, while resisting the suit admitted that the plaintiff was attacked by a bear and had sustained the injuries. They, however, denied their liability for the damages. They also admitted that killing of wild animals is prohibited under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. They denied that the black bear was let loose by them. Various legal objections as to the maintainability of the suit, absence of locus standi of the plaintiff, limitation, jurisdiction of the civil Court and mis-joinder of parties were further raised.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court (Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Dalhousie):

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants ? OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to institute the suit ? OPP

4. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder 1 OPD

5. Whether the suit is within time ? OPP

6. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit ? OPD

7. Relief.

6. Vide judgment and decree dated 29.7.1995, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. The learned trial Court come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled to any damages/compensation as she failed to prove that the black bear, which had attacked her, was let loose by the defendants in the jungle.

7. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned District Judge, Chamba, on 29.8.1997, reversed the findings of the learned trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- with costs. The amount of Rs. 5000/- already received by the plaintiff by way of relief from the State Government was to be adjusted towards the decretal amount. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants are before this court by way of the present second appeal, which was admitted for hearing on 17.3.1998.

8. At the time of admission of the present appeal, no substantial question(s) of law was formulated. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the following two substantial questions of law arise in the present case:

1. Whether the jurisdiction of the court is barred under Section 60 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972?

2. Whether the State is liable for damages in the event of a person being killed or injured by a wild animal? Question No. 1 Se