Govt not responsible for fatal mishaps due to stray cattle: HC

Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, January 4

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that village folks were required to fend themselves from stray cattle. The assertion came in a case where a motorcyclist allegedly suffered fatal injuries following an accident with a stray bull on a village road.

“If stray bulls roam in the village, villagers owe a duty to keep themselves safe against any injuries that may be caused by stray animals coming in the way of commuters all of a sudden and especially in the dark hours,” the High Court asserted.

Victim Atma Ram’s mother and other relatives had moved the High Court against Haryana and other respondents seeking compensation from the Fatehabad Municipal Corporation. Relief was also sought from the state.

The Bench was told that the victim’s family was offered Rs 1 lakh by the state government as compensation for death due to injury caused by a bull under its policy. It was added that the occurrence took place on a village road running through farmlands. “The state has discharged its liability by payment of Rs 1 lakh under its policy,” it was added.

Dismissing the petition, Justice Rajiv Narain Raina asserted the municipality could not be held liable to pay compensation if Atma Ram died of injuries caused by a stray bull crossing the road as it was not at fault.

Justice Raina asserted the municipality was not responsible for the accidental death caused outside its limits as it was not charged with duty to either maintain “those roads or the farmland in private ownership”. It owed no duty of care and caution.

He added: “The state is also not responsible for every fatal accident caused by a stray animal for any amount beyond its policy of fixed compensation unless statutory duties enjoined by law on the state demand such an obligation…”

Justice Raina added it was not the case that Atma Ram was wearing a helmet while riding a two wheeler at the time of the fatal accident resulting in head injury. It could safely be inferred that the victim had not exercised reasonable care to protect himself even when the law enjoined motorcyclists to wear protective gear while a vehicle was in motion. This was a contributing factor taken into consideration by the court on principles of res ipsa loquitur, which means mere occurrence of some types of accident was sufficient to imply negligence.

Referring to a High Court judgment in case of “Sushma Rani versus the state of Punjab and others”, Justice Raina asserted it was of no assistance to the petitioners as death had occurred in an accident with a stray bull within urban area and territorial jurisdiction of a municipality.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.