The court rejected the contention that the wild elephant was not under the control of the forest department and said this did not absolve the state of liability
The court rejected the contention that the wild elephant was not under the control of the forest department and said this did not absolve the state of liability. It observed that the incident could have been avoided if adequate precautionary measures had been taken. The state has a duty to take due care to avoid human-wildlife conflict and adequate measures to ensure that wild animals do not trespass into human habitations or agricultural properties.
Justice C P Mohammed Nias made the observations while dismissing an appeal filed by the forest department challenging the judgment of the sub court, Sulthan Bathery, which had ordered payment of Rs 2 lakh as compensation to the family of Scaria, who died in a wild elephant attack in April 2001. Rs 20,000 had already been paid to Scaria’s family under the Kerala Rules for Payment of Compensation to Victims of Attack by Wild Animals, 1980, according to the forest department. The department contended that the sub court had erred in awarding Rs 2 lakh by disregarding the compensation prescribed under the Rules. The court further held that the compensation scheme under the 1980 Rules cannot be treated as the sole remedy available to victims. Accordingly, the single bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the Rs 2 lakh compensation awarded to Scaria’s family.
The district court, Wayanad, had later upheld the sub court’s order. The amount prescribed under the Rules is only the minimum payable by the state as ex gratia and cannot restrict courts from determining or enhancing compensation based on the actual loss, pain and suffering caused to the family.