Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 16781
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M.G.S. KAMAL, J
THE HUBLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION – Appellant
Versus
MAQBOOLSAHEB S/O. MOULASAHEB BEPARI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS – Respondent
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100137 OF 2019 | R.A.NO.116/2017 | O.S.NO.390/2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G. I. Gachchinamath
For the Respondents: Maqboolahamed M. Patil
Municipal corporations have a statutory duty to control stray dogs, and timely initiated suits for damages due to dog bites are not barred by limitation when following prior legal proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 - Section 482 - Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 - Liability of municipal corporation for damages due to dog bite - Plaintiff's son died from rabies following a dog bite; trial court initially dismissed the suit, but appellate court reversed this decision, awarding Rs.5,00,000/- in compensation with interest at 6% per annum. (Paras 1-3, 10-17)
(B) Limitation - The suit was filed within six months of the disposal of the writ petition allowing the plaintiff to pursue civil remedies, thus was not barred by limitation. (Paras 16-18)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff's son was attacked by a stray dog and subsequently died from rabies. The plaintiff sought compensation for negligence on part of the municipal corporation.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court found the trial court erred in dismissing the suit and confirmed the compensation amount awarded.
Issues: The main issues included the cause of death, the existence of negligence, and whether the suit was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that the municipal corporation had a statutory duty to control stray dogs and that the suit was timely filed following the prior writ petition.
Result: Appeal dismissed; judgment of the First Appellate Court confirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and factual background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments presented by the parties. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's analysis and reasoning. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. final decision and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 18) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL)
1. This appeal is by the defendant aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 18.09.2018 passed in RA No.116/2017 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi, (for short, ‘First Appellate Court’) by which the First Appellate Court while allowing the said appeal filed by the plaintiff set aside the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2017 passed in OS No.390/2012 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, (for short, ‘Trial Court’), to the extent of its finding on issue Nos.3 and 4 and consequently, partly decreed the suit directing the defendant to pay the compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the plaintiff within 3 months from the date of order with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till complete payment.
2. Brief facts of the case are that; son of the plaintiff namely one Rabbani was aged 17 years was attacked by a stray dog on 16.07.2005 and due to the bites of the said dog he sustained injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was admitted to KIMS hospital at Hubballi for treatment. However, due to the infection of Rabies caused by the said dog bite, the said Rabbani passed away on 19.07.2005. Alleging negligence, recklessness and failure to perform its duties, the plaintiff approached this Court by filing writ petition in WP No.3393/2006 . After hearing the parties, this Court by order dated 03.09.2009, the said writ petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the plaintiff herein to pursue the remedy seeking compensation before the Civil Court in accordance with law. Consequent upon which, the plaintiff caused issue of legal notice on 16.12.2009, which was served on 17.12.2009. Defendant had caused issue of a reply dated 21.12.2009. The plaintiff filed the suit claiming damages on 01.03.2010 seeking judgment and decree directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation.
3. Written statement to the said suit was filed by the defendant contending that the suit without claiming declaratory relief and without issuance of statutory notice was not maintainable. Since, the suit has been filed beyond the period of six months, the same was barred by limitation. Hence, sought for dismissal.
4. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that his son died on 19.07.2005 because of rabies consequent to stray dog bite?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the death of his son was due to non performance of duty and negligence on the part of the defendant to destroy stray dogs?
3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for?
4. What order or decree?
5. Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and exhibited 07 documents at Ex.P1 to P.7 and also one doctor who treated the deceased has been examined as PW2. On the other hand, the defendant examined another doctor as DW1.
6. Based on the appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, the Trial Court answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and issue No.4 in the negative and consequently, dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred the above regular appeal in RA No.116/2017 on the file of First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration:
1. Whether interference of this appellate court in the finding of the trial court is necessary?
2. Whether appellant/plaintiff proves that trial court failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in a proper prospective manner?
3. Whether suit is barred by law of limitation?
4. What order or decree
