SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 55921

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WILDLIFE WARDEN KURICHIYADU RANGE – Appellant
Versus
THADATHIL SARAMMA – Respondent
RSA 588/2011



##PAGE1##

CNR : KLHC010392412011

2026/KER/65532

R.S.A.588/2011 1 2026:KER:65532

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

FRIDAY, THE 21 ST DAY OF AUGUST 2026 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1948 RSA NO. 588 OF 2011

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.07.2010 IN AS NO.10 OF 2007 OF

DISTRICT COURT, WAYANAD IN OS NO.41 OF 2002 OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE’S COURT, SULTHANBATHERY

APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS IN A.S/DEFENDANTS IN O.S.:

1 WILDLIFE WARDEN, KURICHIYADU RANGE, CHETHALAYAM, KIDANGANADU AMSOM DESOM,, SULTHANBATHERY.

2 RANGE OFFICER, CHETHALAYAM RANGE KIDANGANADU AMSOM DESOM, SULTHANBATHERY. 3 WAYANAD DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,

KALPATTA AMSOM DESOM.

4 STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD, KALPETTA.

5 FOREST CONSERVATOR, KERALA STATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.KANNAN M. NAIR

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN A.S./PLAINTIFFS IN O.S.:

1 THADATHIL SARAMMA, W/O. SCARIA, KUNNATHUKAVALA,PULPALLY AMSOM,DESOM,, SULTHANBATHERY TALUK. 673 592 (DIED LRS RECORDED)

2 THADATHIL RAJI, S/O.THADATHIL SARAMMA KUNNATHUKAVALA,DO DO. 3 THADATHIL BENNY

S/O.THADATHIL SARAMMA,DO.

##PAGE2##

CNR : KLHC010392412011

2026/KER/65532

R.S.A.588/2011 2 2026:KER:65532

4 THADATHIL JOY S/O.THADATHIL SARAMMA,DO.

5 THADATHIL SHYJU S/O.THADATHIL SARAMMA,DO.

6 THADATHIL BYJU S/O.THADATHIL SARAMMA,DO.

7 THADATHIL BIJU S/O.THADATHIL SARAMMA,DO.

8 THADATHIL AASA D/O.THADATHIL SARAMMA,DO.

RESPONDENTS 2 TO 8 ARE RECORDED AS LRS OF DECEASED R1 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 25.09.13 IN MEMO DATED 9/9/13 VIDE CF

6220/13. BY ADVS.

SHRI.P.V.ANOOP- R2 TO T8 SRI.K.V.SREERAJ- R2 TO T8

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

11.08.2026, THE COURT ON 21.08.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

##PAGE3##

CNR : KLHC010392412011

2026/KER/65532

R.S.A.588/2011 3 2026:KER:65532

C.R.

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.

...........................................

R.S.A. No. 588 of 2011 ...........................................

Dated this the 21st day of August, 2026

JUDGMENT

The appellants herein are the defendants in a suit for damages, O.S.

No.41/2002, before the Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery, and the appellants in A.S. No.10/2007 before the District Court, Wayanad, challenging the

concurrent findings against them.

2. The first respondent/plaintiff is the wife, and the other

respondents/plaintiffs are the children of deceased Scaria, who died due to a wild elephant attack at about 10.30 p.m. on 27.04.2001 at Chamappara Panchayat Road. According to them, this happened due to the negligence and carelessness of the officers of the Forest Department. They contended that they were fully dependent on the income of the said deceased, it caused mental agony, and there is no one to look after them. After filing several petitions, the Forest Department of the Kerala Government had

##PAGE4##

CNR : KLHC010392412011

2026/KER/65532

R.S.A.588/2011 4 2026:KER:65532

given Rs.20,000/- to the plaintiffs/respondents as compensation. They issued a lawyer’s notice on 24.01.2002 to the appellants demanding compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and since they received Rs. 20,000/-, the

compensation claim was limited to Rs. 1,80,000/- while filing the suit.

3. The defendants contended that the incident occurred at

Vandikkadavu- Kolavally road, a forest road, and that the deceased was intoxicated at that time, and the incident happened due to the carelessness and negligence of the deceased. The defendants have taken sufficient precautionary measures to prevent wild animals from entering the private properties. They further contended that all the plaintiffs had their own occupation and income and were not dependent on the deceased. They contended that the compensation claimed by the plaintiffs is exorbitant

and unreasonable.

4. The trial court framed issues as to whether the death of Scaria

caused by the attack of a wild elephant was on account of the negligence of the Forest Department of the State, whether the compensation allowed by the 4th defendant to the plaintiff is insufficient, and whether the plaintiffs are entitled to addi

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top