New Delhi: Taking note of accidents due to stray animals on roads, the Supreme Court Friday directed the Centre and the state governments to develop a mechanism for payment of compensation in such accidents.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh issued a slew of directions and said owners of these animals should be held responsible and ensure that they return to their specified dwellings at the end of each day.
“All states that have enacted their own laws pertaining to cattle should take steps to ensure complete and immediate implementation thereof in letter and spirit. Necessary amendments may be carried out or rules promulgated, as is deemed fit by the competent authority, to develop a mechanism for payment of compensation in accidents caused as a result of bovine/cattle, in both categories of cases, i.e., pedestrian or vehicular,” the bench said.
While directing that tagging of all animals be mandated, the top court said this furthers the ability to keep track of them, ensuring their long-term health service, linking to veterinary check-ups and vaccinations.
“The reality of animals being let go after they cease to serve a useful, economic purpose cannot be denied. The owners choosing to make such a decision should be held responsible and ensure safe transfer of such animals to the shelters run by the appropriate authority.
“The authorities at such shelters should issue a receipt acknowledging such transfer and cause the details of such animal to be entered/ altered in the database of tagging,” the bench said.
The apex court said that in order to ensure that the tagging, digitisation of records and smooth running of these shelters is duly undertaken, the authorities may depute a particular officer in every corporation/ department who shall be the nodal officer for such purpose.
The direction came while hearing an appeal filed by a woman challenging an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which set aside Rs 29.32 lakh compensation to her.
The woman’s husband was hit by a stray bull while walking on the road and sustained a head injury leading to his death.
After his death, the woman filed a petition before the high court seeking adequate compensation. The single-judge bench assessed and awarded compensation by applying the principles governing the grant of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the basis of the income of the deceased/ claimants, age and other relevant factors.
However, the division bench quashed the order of the single-judge bench solely on the ground that disputed questions of fact could not have been adjudicated under Article 226 jurisdiction.
