Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 30658
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J
GEETA DEVI – Appellant
Versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
W.P.(C) 860/2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ankit Jain, Mr. Brijesh Chaudhary, Mr. Madhav Bhatia, Mr. Shreyas Shankar Joshi
For the Respondents: Mr. Jai Bansal, Mr. Abhishek Verma, Ms. Sonia Arora, Mr. Arun Birbal, Mr. Varun Gupta, Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, Mr. Ranjeet Panday
Claim for compensation under public law due to negligence in managing stray dogs affirmed despite insufficient direct liability of public authorities.
Headnote:(A) Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 - Section 399 - Public Law Remedy - Claim for compensation due to death by dog bite - Court examines negligence by respondents and statutory duties pertaining to stray dogs - Petition dismissed due to lack of evidence of negligence; ex-gratia amount of ₹2,50,000 granted. (Paras 48, 50)
(B) Right to Life - Article 21 - Violation through negligence in managing stray dog populations - Court upholds principle of public law remedy for granting compensation for infringement of fundamental rights. (Paras 24, 34)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claims compensation for the death of her 5-month-old son due to a dog attack, alleging negligence by municipal authorities for failing to manage stray dogs. The child was attacked in the family's home. (Paras 1-6)
Findings of Court:
The Court finds insufficient direct accountability of the MCD for the incident, though it recognizes the tragic loss and issues an ex-gratia amount to the petitioner for her suffering. (Paras 48-50)
Issues: The Court considers whether a compensation claim can be made under Article 226 of the Constitution for dog bite incidents. (Paras 23-24)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur to determine negligence but concluded that the MCD's duty does not extend to private premises. Therefore, the evidence did not support a finding of negligence by the MCD. (Paras 42-44)
Result: Ex-gratia amount of ₹2,50,000 awarded to the petitioner.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. circumstances of the child's death due to dog attack. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. liability and negligence of state authorities regarding stray dogs. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's rationale in applying public law principles. (Para 12 , 13 , 19 , 22 , 27 , 28 , 34) |
| 4. application of res ipsa loquitur concerning state negligence. (Para 24 , 36 , 42) |
| 5. judgment granting ex-gratia compensation and the court's observations. (Para 48 , 50) |
JUDGMENT
In the instant writ petition, the Court is called upon to consider a claim for compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs, emanating from the tragic death of a 5-month-old infant child, namely Dewan Singh (hereinafter “deceased”) who was fatally bitten by a dog.
2. The facts of the case would exhibit that the petitioner is the mother of the deceased, who was residing at plot No.7, 23 Block, near Post Office, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018, along with her family comprising of herself, her husband, two daughters, namely Manisha (6-year-old) and Ninnu (2-year-old) and the deceased son.
3. On the fateful day of 16.08.2007, at around 6.15 A.M., when the petitioner‟s kids were sleeping in the house, a stray dog entered their room and started attacking the deceased. Upon realising the disturbance so made, the elder daughter, namely Manisha woke up and saw the dog mauling the deceased. She raised an alarm and called for help from the petitioner‟s husband, who had gone out of the house to Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified fetch water. By the time the petitioner and her husband rushed in, the Digitally Signed Digitally Signed dog had already severely injured the deceased's eyes, nose and cheeks. It is alleged that as soon as the husband of the petitioner saw the dog, he picked up the broomstick and started hitting the dog, who also tried to attack him but subsequently ran away.
4. Thereafter, the deceased was immediately rushed to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, where he was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) but unfortunately, he succumbed to the injuries and died. A complaint vide DD No.37A dated 16.08.2007 was recorded by the ASI of Police Station Tilak Nagar, West Delhi indicating that the body of the deceased was handed over to the parents.
5. On 04.04.2008, a legal notice was sent by the petitioner to respondent No.1-Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereinafter “GNCTD”) and respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter “MCD”) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-.
6. The petitioner, thereafter, has filed the instant petition to agitate her grievance, primarily seeking the relief of compensation.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that it is an incontrovertible fact that the petitioner‟s infant child was fatally bitten by a stray dog, resulting in his unfortunate death. He contended that the incident in question occurred as a direct consequence of the negligence on the part of the respondents and therefore, the respondents must be held liable for the negligence.
8. He further emphasized that despite the sterilization measures purportedly undertaken by the MCD, the population growth of stray dogs remains a prevailing concern in nearly all the streets and colonies across the city. He averred that the respondents have a duty to ensure that the areas inhabited by humans are adequately protected from any Signature Not Vertihfireedats posed by street or stray dogs. According to the pSeigtnitaitournee Nro, t tVheer ified Digitally Signed Digitally Signed dereliction of this duty has resulted in the violation of the fundamental right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
9. Learned counsel then drew the attention of the Court to Section 399 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter “DMC Act”), which casts a duty on the MCD and its Commissioner to register and regulate dogs within its jurisdiction. According to him, the said measures have not been adopted by the
