JUDGMENT

The stray dog menace and frequent instances of dog attack in Kerala, resulting in grievous injuries and even death in some cases, was brought to the notice of the Honourable Supreme Court during the hearing of a claim for compensation raised by the family of a dog bite victim. On being apprised about the gravity of the situation, the Supreme Court issued Exhibit P4 order, constituting a committee consisting of Justice (Rtd) Siri Jagan, the Law Secretary and the Director of Health Services. The Justice (Rtd.) S.Siri Jagan Committee was authorised to entertain complaints regarding injuries sustained due to dog bites, the nature and gravity of the injury, availability of medicines, the treatment administered, failure of treatment, its cure etc. The Committee was also required to identify the centres/hospitals where anti-rabies vaccines are available free of charge.

2. In terms of the above direction, the Committee submitted reports to the Supreme Court and also started hearing complaints filed by victims of dog bite and related incidents.

3. One such incident occurred in the petitioner Panchayat on

5.9.2016; On that day, while the second respondent was riding his scooter, a stray dog suddenly ran across the road. According to the 2nd respondent, to avoid hitting against the dog he had to brake suddenly. As a result, the scooter skidded and the 2nd respondent fell on the road and sustained injuries. Later, the second respondent lodged a complaint before the Justice (Rtd.) S.Siri Jagan Committee. The Committee, after due enquiry passed Exhibit P2 order fixing the compensation at Rs.1,83,714/- and directed the Kulanada Grama Panchayat to pay the amount with interest @ 9% from the date of claim till payment. Aggrieved, the Panchayat has filed this writ petition challenging Exhibit P2 order.

4. Adv.V.Sethunath, learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged the following contentions in support of the challenge;

The Justice (Rtd.) S.Siri Jagan Committee is empowered only to entertain only complaints relating to dog bite incidents. In the instant case, the second respondent had sustained injuries by falling off his scooter, when a stray dog ran across the road. The said accident cannot be termed as an incident relating to dog bite. Being so, the Committee did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and order compensation. Alternatively, it is contended that the order was passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and no material was available for the Committee to assess and decide the quantum of compensation.

5. Adv. K.Reeha Khader, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent, countered the contentions by submitting that Exhibit P4 order was issued in the context of constituting a new Committee and the powers of the Committee is not in any manner restricted by the observations in that order. It is pointed out that, subsequent to Exhibit P4, the Committee had submitted interim reports before the Supreme Court pointing out the menace posed by stray dogs and the measures to be taken for curbing the menace. In those reports, the Committee had enumerated situations which are affecting the public at large. Based on the reports, the Apex Court issued a detailed order on 12.8.2016 (See Anupam Tripathi v. Union of India and others in [(2016) 10 SCC

688]).

6. In order to answer the contention that the impugned order was passed without affording sufficient opportunity, learned Counsel drew attention to the observation in paragraph 2 of Exhibit P2 order, wherein the Committee has observed that the Kulanada Grama Panchayat had not chosen to file any statement, in spite of a copy of the claim being served on it. Reference was also made to paragraph 4 of the order, which reads as under;

“4. The Secretary of the Kulanada Grama Panchayat stated that on enquiry the incident was found to be true. From 2015-16 onwards ABC programme is being implemented in the Panchayat with the help of the District Panchayat.