Approach Court for compensation from Panchayath

Munsif Court >> Sessions Court >> High Court >> Supreme Court

RSA.No. 1061 of 2010 (B ) PORATHISSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH Vs ANTHONY

Case in the plaint, stated briefly, is as follows: The plaintiff/1st respondent is a porter in the Food Corporation of India, Ankamaly. On 18.06.2003 at 7.35 a.m., while he was proceeding to a bus stop to attend to his duties, a stray dog attacked him and bit on his leg. He was immediately taken to Medical College Hospital, Mulankunnathukavu, Thrissur. He was required to take anti-rabis vaccination. Since the medicine was not available in the Medical College Hospital, it was brought from Coimbatore at a cost of `14,076/-. He mobilised the amount through his friends and relatives. He was given other medicines and rabipur injection at a cost of `.264/- per day, for three days. He had also incurred travelling expenses and bystandard's expenses. According to the plaintiff, he had incurred  `20,000/- towards the medical treatment and other expenses. It was the mandatory duty of the Grama Panchayat to render help to the inhabitants of the Panchayat in respect of the functions enumerated in item No.27 to Third Schedule of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (in short, "the Act). The 1st defendant did not do anything to fulfill the mandatory duties cast on it by the provisions of the Act and the relevant Rules. According to the plaintiff, he is entitled to get `3,500/- as damages, `5,000/- for agony and tension and `5,000/- for pain and suffering. Though he claimed `13,500/- as special damages, he limited it to `10,000/-. Thus the total compensation claimed by the plaintiff is `30,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till realisation.

 In this case, there is no evidence to hold that the stray dog which had bitten the plaintiff was a rabid dog. Therefore, the Act of 1960 and the Rules squarely applied. From the above discussion, it is clear that the appellant Panchayat was duty bound to take measures to prevent the danger of stray dogs bitting citizens from within its territory. Therefore I find no reason to interfere with the finding of the lower appellate court that the appellant is liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff/1st respondent.