Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 67813
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Mohammed Nias C.P., J
State of Kerala – Appellant
Versus
Sebastian @ Sabu V K – Respondent
RSA NO. 449 OF 2026 (C)
Important Points
Subject
Torts - State Liability
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Compensation - Ex gratia payment schemes - The existence of a welfare scheme for expeditious ex gratia relief does not constitute the sole and exclusive remedy available to a victim - The right to claim just and adequate compensation is a substantive right traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution and common law principles of strict liability - Statutory limits on ex gratia payments provide only a minimum floor and do not fetter the power of civil courts to award higher compensation commensurate with the actual loss, pain, and suffering.
Facts of the case:
A resident was attacked by wild elephants at his residence, resulting in serious injuries and permanent disability. The plaintiff sought damages from the State, alleging that the authorities failed to provide necessary electric fencing and trenches where forest land meets private property. The State contended that wild animals roaming freely are not in its custody and that the compensation already paid under the applicable rules was the maximum permissible limit.
Findings of Court:
The State is responsible for balancing wildlife protection with the right to life. Since the plaintiff was attacked at his residence and the State produced no evidence of having installed solar fencing, trenches, or walls, the finding of negligence was justified. The statutory compensation rules are for ex gratia relief and do not bar a civil action for higher damages.
Issues: Whether the State can be held liable for injuries caused by wild animals roaming freely in forests and whether a statutory compensation scheme bars a civil suit for higher damages.
Ratio Decidendi: The State's duty of reasonable care includes implementing protective measures near human habitations. The right to just compensation under Article 21 and strict liability is independent of any executive scheme, and such schemes provide only a minimum threshold for compensation.
Result: Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
tort
- strict liability
- negligence
-
constitutional law
-
fundamental rights
- right to life
-
directive principles
- wildlife protection
-
fundamental rights
-
environmental law
-
wildlife protection
- wild life (protection) act, 1972
-
wildlife protection
-
administrative law
- statutory schemes
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kannan M.
For the Respondents: Mithun P., Merin Thomas, Sumeen S.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.10.2026, THE COURT ON 13.10.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellants are the defendants in O.S. No.114 of 2018, a suit for damages before the Munsiff’s Court, Kalpetta, and the appellants in A.S. No. 12 of 2023 before the Sub Court, Sulthanbathery. They challenge the concurrent findings/judgment/decree against them.
The plaintiff, an agriculturist residing at Thariode, alleged that at about 6.00 a.m. on 05.07.2017, as he came out of his house to milk his cow, three wild elephants from the forest charged at and trampled him, causing serious injuries, including multiple fractures. He was admitted to Baby Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode, from 05.07.2017 to 19.07.2017 and underwent surgery. He claimed to have spent Rs.2,50,000/- on surgery and a further Rs.2,50,000/- on other medical expenses. He immediately reported the incident to the third defendant, who visited him and paid Rs.75,000/- as emergency relief, while leading him to believe that the remaining expenses would be reimbursed. No further payment was made.
The plaintiff sent notices to the defendants. Defendants 1 and 2 accepted the notices and replied that they had recommended further compensation to the Government, including Rs.5,00,000/- from the Chief Minister’s Distress Relief Fund, but the third defendant rejected the claim. The plaintiff alleged that the attack left him permanently disabled, unable to undertake work requiring physical skill, and with his left leg shorter than his right. He attributed the incident to the defendants’ failure to provide proper electric fencing and trenches where forest land meets private property. He accordingly sought Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum, jointly and severally from the defendants.
Defendants 2 and 3 did not dispute that the plaintiff was injured in a wild-elephant attack. They contended that the Rs.75,000/- paid was the maximum compensation payable under the Kerala Rules for Payment of Compensation to Victims of Attack by Wild Animals, 1980, and Government Order No. 32/13/F&WLD dated 22.03.2013. They had recommended further compensation to the Government and were awaiting its decision, as defendant 1 alone could sanction more than Rs.75,000/-. They denied having control over wild animals but maintained that they had taken all measures humanly possible to prevent attacks on people living near forests. They sought dismissal of the suit with costs.
The trial court considered whether the plaintiff was entitled to compensation and, if so, its amount. It held that the compensation scheme did not bar a victim from seeking damages in a civil court if the prescribed compensation was inadequate. Applying the principles of strict liability, the trial Court appreciated the evidence of PW1 regarding the absence of trenches or fencing, while DW1’s assertion that solar fencing existed was unsupported by documents. The defendants neither produced evidence of the fencing nor sought an inspection by an Advocate Commissioner.
By judgment dated 31.03.2021, the trial Court partly decreed the suit for Rs.5,37,030/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of suit until realisation. The award comprised Rs.1,20,000/- for loss of earnings; Rs.2,000/- for clothing and transport; Rs.3,750/- for bystander expenses; Rs.3,000/- for extra nourishment; Rs.1,24,280/- for medical expenses; Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering; and Rs.2,34,000/- for permanent disability.
Though the defendants filed an appeal, the same was dismissed by the Sub Court on 20.12.2025. The appellate Court relied on the decision in State of Kerala v. V.V. George [2017 (3) KHC 882] and held that the compensation rules did not expressly or impliedly bar a civil action and that the State and its officers could be liable under the doctrine of strict liability. Although DW1 stated that solar fencing, trenches and a wall had been provided and watchers appo
