Kerala High Court orders panchayat to compensate stray dog attack victim

The Kerala High Court has held the Eruvessy grama panchayat responsible for paying compensation of ₹10,000 to a person who sustained injuries in a stray dog attack in 2007, as the local body failed to perform its statutory duties. 

The Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar ruled that the panchayat failed to capture and sterilize dogs legally, thus failing in its duty to protect its citizens.

The court held that there was no evidence to establish that the panchayat had discharged any of the essential duties cast upon it under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Birth Control Rules. “The dog bite incident which gave rise to the present claim is a direct and reasonably foreseeable consequence of the panchayat’s failure to discharge its statutory obligations,” it held.

The Munsiff Court, Thaliparamba, where Tankappan of Kannur had filed his claim against the panchayat, had concluded that the incident occurred within the limits of the panchayat and found neglect on its part in discharging its statutory duty. The court further held that, though the panchayat was duty-bound to prevent the menace of stray dogs by insisting on licences for dogs within the limits of the panchayat, no such action had been taken during the 2007-2008 period or even during the preceding ten years. The Sub-court, Payyannur, reappreciated the evidence in an appeal by the panchayat against the Munsiff Court’s order. 

The panchayat approached the High Court in a second appeal, contending that it had taken all necessary steps within the limits of the panchayat and that it was not responsible for a singular stray dog attack. It argued that there were no stray dogs within the panchayat and Mr. Tankappan might have been bitten by a stray dog outside its limits. It stated that the panchayat received no financial assistance from the State to deal with the menace of stray dogs. It was also argued that if civil courts started awarding compensation to victims in such incidents, it would open floodgates of litigation, which would hinder the panchayat’s regular functions. 

The panchayat relied on the fact that the provisions in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, overrode the law relating to local self-government institutions, which cast a duty on the panchayat to eradicate stray dogs. 

Mr. Tankappan refuted the panchayat’s claims, stating that it was duty-bound to control and seize stray dogs. According to Mr. Tankappan, once it was established that the panchayat had failed to take any such action, it could not evade its responsibility to pay him. 

The court held that it was clear that every village panchayat has a mandatory function to issue licences to domestic dogs and to control stray dogs, of course, in accordance with the provisions contained in the Birth Control Rules and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The panchayat had no case that it had constituted a Monitoring Committee as mandated under the law, or that it had carried out the process of sterilisation of street dogs at any point of time. Neither did they have a case that they undertook any assessment to determine whether such measures were required. Since it had failed to take these measures, the court opined, it could not claim protection under the requirement that capture or sterilisation of street dogs could only be undertaken upon specific complaints.