IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 09.04.2026 [1] RSA-3427-2025 (O&M)

Municipal Council, Bhiwani ….Appellant Versus Smt. Savitri and others ….Respondents [2] RSA-302-2026 (O&M)

Municipal Council, Bhiwani ….Appellant Versus Smt. Savitri and others ….Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nischal Manchanda, Advocate for the appellant (in both appeals). Mr.Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 4 (in both appeals).

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

The instant appeals have been instituted by defendant No.2-Municipal Council, Bhiwani, against the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2025 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and partly allowing the cross-objections filed by the plaintiff (Smt. Savitri). Vide judgment and decree dated

11.05.2023 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani, the suit filed by the plaintiff, had been decreed.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3. The plaintiff instituted a suit claiming compensation/damages of Rs.30 lakhs on account of the death of her husband, Surender Singh.

3.1 The case of the plaintiff was that on 03.06.2016, Surender Singh, while coming out of the Court Compound, Bhiwani, was hit by a bullock, while two bullocks were in the process of fighting with each other. Surender Singh suffered grievous injuries on his abdomen. He was taken to Bhardwaj Hospital by one Vikas and Bhalla Ram, where he remained admitted upto 06.06.2016. Thereafter, he was shifted to SPES Hospital, Bhiwani, as he had to be put on a ventilator. He, however, expired.

3.2 It was claimed that Surender Singh was the sole bread-winner of the family. It was averred that he was an agriculturist and also used to run a dairy. His monthly income was claimed to be Rs.40,000/-. It was asserted that he was 56 years of age at the time of his death. It was claimed by the plaintiff that she and her major children (profroma defendants No.3 to 5) were solely dependent upon the income of her late husband.

3.3 It was claimed that it was on account of the negligence on the part of the Municipal Authorities that the stray cattle had been left loose on public roads. It was claimed that Rs.2 lakhs had been spent on the treatment of Surender Singh.

A sum of Rs.30 lakhs was claimed as compensation.

4. The suit was opposed by the Municipal Council, Bhiwani. In the written statement, certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus-standi and the plaintiff not having approached the Court with clean hands, were raised. On merits, it was averred that the suit was not maintainable as the Court Compound, did not come within the area of Municipal Council, Bhiwani. It was denied that the death of Surender Singh had taken place on account of the negligence on the part of the Municipal Authorities. It was also averred that the plaintiff had not been able to prove that her husband had died on account of having been hit by a stray bullock.

4.1 Defendant No.1 (State of Haryana) had adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.2.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages on account of death of Surender Singh due to negligence of defendants or their officials to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- along with interest @ 18%

per annum as prayed for?OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit?OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from the Court?OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct?OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has not affixed the proper Court fee on plaint?OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff has filed