1

WA No. 409 of 2020

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

J udgment reserved on 23-3-2023

Judgment delivered on 28-04-2023

WA No. 409 of 2020

1.State of Chhattisgarh through Principal Secretary, Department of

Health and Family Welfare and Medical Education, Mahanandi

Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District :

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2.State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, District Bilaspur

Chhattisgarh

3.Additional Collector Pendra-Road, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

4.Chief Medical and Health Officer Bilaspur Office at Shree Vihar,

Ashok Nagar, Sarkanda, Seepat Road, District Bilaspur

Chhattisgarh.

5.State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Raipur District Raipur

Chhattisgarh

6.Chief Medical and Health Officer Raipur Office at Old Directorate,

Near D. K. Hospital, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

7.Dean Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital, Sadar

Bazar, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

8.Dean Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Jail Road,

Opposite Central Jail, Moudhapara, Raipur District Raipur

Chhattisgarh ---- Appellants

Versus

Bhaiya Lal Gond S/o Shri Chaitu Gond Aged About 62 Years R/o

Village Kanhari, Gorakhpur, Tehsil Pendra-Road, Police Station

Gaurella, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

2

WA No. 409 of 2020

WA No. 126 of 2021

1.State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of

Revenue and Disaster Management, Mantralaya Mahanadi

Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2.Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster

Management, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District

Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3.The Collector Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

4.Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Dongargarh, District

Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

5.Sarpanch Village Panchayat Bakal, Tehsil Dongargaon, District

Rajnangaon Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants

Versus

Lukesh Kumar Razak S/o Late Sukhit Ram Razak, Aged About

23 Years R/o Village And Village Panchayat Diwanbhedhi Tehsil

Dongarhgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent

WA No. 127 of 2021

1.State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of

Revenue and Disaster Management, Mantralaya Mahanadi

Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2.Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster

Management, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District

Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3.The Collector Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

4.Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Dongargaon, District

Rajanandgaon Chhattisgarh.

5.Sarpanch Village Panchayat Badhbhum, Tehsil Dongargaon,

District Rajnangaon Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants

Versus

3

WA No. 409 of 2020

Smt. Jamuna Bai W/o Late Morajdhavaj Athanagriya, Aged About

32 Years R/o Village and Village Panchayat Badhbhum, Tehsil

Dongarhgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent

WA No. 153 of 2021

1.State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of

Revenue and Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi

Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2.Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster

Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District

- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3.The Collector Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon,

Chhattisgarh.

4.Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat - Dongargaon, District

- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

5.Sarpanch, Village Panchayat, Bakal, Tehsil Dongargaon, District

- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants

Versus

Dhanraj Sahu, S/o Rajuram Sahu, Aged About 27 Years R/o

Village And Village Panchayat - Bakal, Tehsil Dongargaon,

District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent

For Appellants/ State :- Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Addl. A.G.

For Respondent in WA No.409/2020:- Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate

For Respondents in WA Nos.126/2021, 127/2021 & 153/2021:- Mr.

Shobhit Koshta, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Goutam Bhaduri

Hon'ble Shri N.K. Chandravanshi

C A V Judgment

The following judgment of the Court is delivered by Goutam

Bhaduri, J.

4

WA No. 409 of 2020

Dr. Pradeep Beck (M.D. Medicine), Professor Medicine,

Medical Superintendent, Govt. Medical College Associate

Hospital (Rajnandgaon) is present in the Court to place

certain documents on record with respect to treatment of

deceased.

In these four appeals by the State, the challenge is to the

compensation granted by the learned Single Bench for the death

caused by rabies infection due to stray dog bites.

(i) WA No.409/2020

1.This appeal is against the order dated 18.6.2019 passed by

learned Single Bench in WPC No.1178/2019 whereby the State

Government was directed to pay compensation to the tune of

Rs.10.00 lakhs (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) to the petitioner (father

of deceased).

2.The brief facts of this case are that on 07.10.2018 Gend Lal,

(since deceased) son of Bhaiyalal suffered a stray dog bite, who

was aged about 38 years. According to the respondent, father of

deceased, after local treatment, the victim developed a symptom

of hydrophobia on 4-5/11/2018. Thereafter, on 05.11.2018

deceased was taken to CIIMS hospital at Bilaspur from village.

According to the respondent, deceased was not treated and was

sent away to Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur

wherein he died on 06.11.2018.

3.According to the learned State Counsel appearing for

appellant/State, the learned Single Bench has relied on the

5

WA No. 409 of 2020

judgment of this Court in Shobha Ram Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh passed in WPC No.1856 of 2018 on 10.10.2018

along with other cases wherein a compensation of Rs. 10.00

lakhs was granted and further in a reference case viz In

Reference Court on its own motion (Regarding Death of Ku.

Divya Verma, D/o Shri Ashok Verma due to Rabies) Vs. State

of Chhattisgarh passed in WPPIL No.24/2017 where also a

death took place by dog bite, a compensation of Rs.10.00 Lakhs

was granted. He would submit that facts of those cases would

not be applicable to the present case as neither any pleading

exists where dog bite took-place nor the Gram Panchayat was

made a party which was a necessary ingredient as prescribed in

case of Shobha Ram (Supra). He would further submit that in

order to ascertain quantum of damages, an enquiry would be

necessary as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Anupam Tripathi Vs. Union of India [(2016) 13 SCC

492]. He would also submit that according to the respondent

(father of deceased) himself, the deceased did not undergo the

scheduled treatment of vaccines, which is required for dog bite

and absconded from hospital, therefore, no treatment could be

given.

4.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that

deceased belongs to a remote village at Gourella and despite his

visit to health center, could not get the medical support for

treatment. He would submit after the stray/ rabies dog bite, when

he developed hydrophobia symptom, he was brought to CIIMS

6

WA No. 409 of 2020

Hospital at Bilaspur, which is a district headquarter wherein he

was not allowed to be admitted and instead of admitting the

deceased, he was referred to a long distant hospital of Raipur

which is 120 K.Ms away from Bilaspur. He would submit that

this act of Appellant/State would amount to negligence.

Consequently, the compensation to that extent granted by the

learned Single Bench is justified.

(ii) WA No.126/2021

5.This appeal is against the order dated 17.9.2020 passed by

learned Single Bench in WPC No.1713/2019 whereby the State

Government was directed to pay compensation to the tune of

Rs.5.00 Lacs (Rupees Five Lacs Only) to the petitioner.

6.Brief facts of this case are that one Sukhit Ram Razak, aged

about 52 years, was bitten by stray dog on 13.6.2018 while he

was going for his job. He was admitted to the Government

Medical Hospital, Rajnandgaon on 13.6.2018, but, was

discharged on 18.6.2018. However, on 30.6.2018 he developed

rabies infection and eventually succumbed to it on 30.6.2018.

The learned Single Bench has granted a compensation of

Rs.5.00 Lacs to the respondent Lukesh Kumar Razak, son of

deceased.

(iii) WA No.127/2021

7.The present appeal is against the order dated 17.9.2020 passed

by learned Single Bench in WPC No.1514/2019 whereby the

7

WA No. 409 of 2020

State Government was directed to pay compensation to the tune

of Rs.7.5 Lacs (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousands Only) to

the petitioner.

8.Brief facts of this case are that one Morajdhavaj Athanagriya,

aged about 36 years, husband of the respondent Jamuna Bai

was admitted to hospital on 24.2.2018 with a history of stray/

rabies dog bite, before two months of his admission.

Subsequently, he died on 25.2.2018 and respondent was granted

compensation to the tune of Rs. 7.5 Lacs by the learned Single

Bench for the reason that he was aged about 36 years and was

working as a laborer.

(iv) WA No.153/2021

9.The present appeal is against the order dated 26.8.2020 passed

by learned Single Bench in WPC No.2021/2019 whereby the

State Government was directed to pay compensation to the tune

of Rs.2.5 Lacs (Rupees Two Lacs Fifty Thousands Only) to the

petitioner.

10.Brief facts of this case are that a child of two years was bitten by

stray dog/rabid dog on 11.8.2018. He was admitted in hospital

and was subsequently discharged. The child died on 01.9.2018.

The Learned Single Bench has granted compensation to the tune

of Rs.2.5 Lacs to the father of the child namely; Dhanraj Sahu

(respondent herein).

Submission of learned State / Appellant counsel in WA

8

WA No. 409 of 2020

No.126/2021, WA No.127/2021 & WA No.153/2021

11.Learned State counsel would submit that in all these cases the

deceased did not follow the schedule of vaccine and despite

advice, they avoided to get the anti rabies vaccine. He would

further submit that though the negligence has been attributed to

the State, but, those facts findings are not on record apart from

the fact that quantum of compensation is variable as such the

judgment rendered in Anupam Tripathi (Supra) would govern the

field. He would further submit that the revenue book circular also

does not allow the State to grant compensation for the death due

to stray dog/ rabid dog bite. Consequently, the order of the

learned Single Bench is required to be set-aside.

Submission of learned respondent counsel in WA No.126/2021, WA

No.127/2021 and WA No.153/2021

12. Mr. Koshta, learned counsel for respondents would submit that

the State is under the strict liability to take care of the welfare of

the citizens and if any attack is made by stray dog/ rabid dog,

causing death, the State cannot avoid its liability. He would

further submit that in the like nature cases of predatory wild

animal attacks and consequent death, way back in 2018, the

State has promulgated a policy that in case of death caused by

predatory wild animal, a compensation of Rs.4.00 Lacs is being

granted. He also submits that earlier in case of Divya Verma

(Supra) specific directions were given by the learned Division

Bench to the State. He submits that the said case Divya Verma

9

WA No. 409 of 2020

(Supra) also relates to dog bite, but the directions given in that

case are not being followed and as a result, deaths of like nature

have been caused. He further submits that even in case of

Anupam Tripathi (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted

ex-gratia compensation and there is no reason as to why the

compensation which was being granted by a direct circular of the

State in the like nature of cases would not be granted as a ex-

gratia to the respondents. He would submit that because of the

negligence on the part of the State, the compensation has been

granted which is well merited and does not call for any

interference.

13.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also

perused the records.

14.It appears that the primary grievance of the Appellant-State is

that without making assessment of loss of income, the blanket

order for payment of compensation for death of dog bite may not

be sustainable. The State case is that unless a fact finding

inquiry is conducted, the Court cannot grant compensation,

therefore, in the instant cases, the compensation should not

have been granted in absence of fact finding. Reliance is placed

in Anupam Tripathi Versus Union of India (2016) 13 SCC 492

wherein the Supreme Court observed that on such fact being

recorded, the Court subject to adjudication of responsibility of the

State, would be in a position to think of granting of compensation

or making certain arrangements. We find merit in submission of

State that without the fact finding enquiry of loss caused, this

10

WA No. 409 of 2020

Court will not be in a position to deal with the compensation facet.

15.We intend to follow the said analogy of the Supreme Court that

before passing the order of compensation, certain scale has to be

applied to grant different compensation to different members of

the Society, therefore, a blanket order of compensation cannot be

sustained. It is obvious that in given cases, the compensation

granted may be lesser or may be higher in some cases, which

would certainly depend on amount of loss sustained by way of

income as being computed in grant of compensation in Motor

Vehicle accident cases. Those quantums of compensation

would also depend upon the degree of negligence looking to the

nature of each case. Therefore, following the analogy laid down

by the Supreme Court in (2016) 13 SCC 492, the compensation

would depend upon the fact finding issue. However, this would

not be inclusive of the gratuitous compensation which is being

granted by the State in the like nature of cases. A reference is

made to the order issued by the state Government on 12

th

June

2015 whereby gratuitous compensation is provided in case of

death occurred by predatory wild animals.

16.The Supreme Court in Sanjay Phophaliya V. State of

Rajasthan AIR 1998 Raj. 96, relying on L.K. Koolwal v. State of

Rajasthan, observed thus :

“It is primary, mandatory and obligatory duly

(sic duty) of Municipality to keep city clean and to

remove insanitation, nuisance etc. The Municipality

cannot take plea whether funds or staff is available or

not.”

11

WA No. 409 of 2020

It was further observed that -

9. It is a serious matter when the dogs and

other animals suffering from rabies bite animals and

persons. The duty becomes more onerous on the

respondent with regard to the dogs and such animals.

The staff cannot say that its duty is complete if action

is taken only on complaints. They must not sit in the

office but should continuously take round of the city. If

any inaction is found on the part of the staff, the

respondents are bound to take disciplinary action

against such staff. If still any accident happens, then

the injured person or relative of the deceased person

would be competent to invoke the provisions of

Section 188 of IPC against such a negligent staff. It is

expected that the roads of Jodhpur be cleaned from

these stray animals within a period of four months

from today. The respondents would be free to get

work through contractors.”

17.Further, this Court in WPC No.1178/2019 (Bhaiyalal Gond v.

State of Chhattisgarh) decided on 18.06.2019 at paras 5 and 6

had referred to the dictum laid down by this Court in Shobha

Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh WPC No.1856 decided on

10.10.2018 and observed that if such dog bite death is caused

in Gram Panchayats, then a statutory duty is cast upon the

respective Gram Panchayats. The Court at para 5 and 6 has

held as under :

“5.In Shobha Ram (supra), this Court after

placing reliance upon the decisions rendered in Anupam

Tripathi v. Union of India (2016) 13 SCC 492 , Shakuntala

v. Govt of NCT of Delhi, WPC No. 13771 of 2006 decided

on 1.7.2009 (Delhi High Court); Sanjay Phophaliya v.

State of Rajasthan AIR 1998 Raj 96, L.K. Koolwal v. State

of Rajasthan AIR 1988 Raj 2, Milkmen Colony Vikas

Samiti v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2007 SC 1046, Col.

Dharamvir Kataria v. Union of India AIR 1999 Delhi 291,

D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. (1997) 1 SCC 416, Nilabati

Behera (Smt.) Alias Lalita Behera (Through the Supreme

Court Legal Aid Committee) v. State of Oriassa and others

12

WA No. 409 of 2020

(1993) 2 SCC 746 and In Reference court on its own

motion (regarding Death of Ku. Divya Verma, D/o Shri

Ashok Verma due to Rabies) v. State of Chhattisgarh WP

PIL No.24 of 2017 (Chhattisgarh High Court) as also by

placing reliance upon the provisions of the Chhattisgarh

Gram Panchayat (Sanitation, Conservancy and Prevention

and Abatement of Nuisance) Rules, 1999 (henceforth ‘the

Rules, 1999’) has held that if due to failure of the

administration or the Gram Panchayat to control stray

dogs and for that reason any member of the locality dies

due to bite by rabid dog/stray dog the State Government

would be liable to compensate the legal representatives of

the deceased.

6.In Shobha Ram (supra) this court has held

thus in paras 20, 23 & 24 :

20.The Rules, 1999 thus

obligates the Gram Panchayat to detain an

unclaimed dog and destroy the said dog after

three clear days. The Gram Panchayat has

failed to perform its duty under Rule 29 of the

Rules, 1999, therefore, for failure of the Gram

Panchayat to perform its statutory function, the

said Gram Panchayat jointly with the state

Government would be liable to compensate the

petitioner.

21. xxx xxx xxx

22. xxx xxx xxx

23.In the matter of In Reference Court on its own

motion (Regarding death of Ku. Divya Verma, D/o

Shri Ashok Verma due to Rabies) v. State of

Chhattisgarh by order dated 22.08.2017 this Court,

while entertaining the suo motu PIL, has allowed

compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the mother of

the deceased who died on account of attack by

street dog. Prayer for modification of the said order

subsequently rejected by order dated 12.09.2017.

24.In view of the above, I deem it appropriate to

award compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-

in favour of the petitioner minus (-) the amount

already paid by the Government to the Hospital

where the deceased obtained treatment. Petitioner

13

WA No. 409 of 2020

would, thus, be entitled to a sum of Rs.8,50,000/-

within a period of three months from the date of

receipt of certified copy of this order.”

18.When the compensation is sought, it is necessary to follow the

principle of “strict liability” or “no-fault liability”. The Supreme

Court in Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008)

9 SCC 527 has laid down the principle that exception to the

doctrine of strict liability or no-fault liability for hazardous activities

cannot be applied to a Welfare State and there has been a

corresponding shift from positivism to sociological jurisprudence.

The Court at Para 24 held thus :

“24. The basis of the doctrine of strict

liability is two-fold; (i) The people who engage in

particularly hazardous activities should bear the

burden of the risk of damage that their activities

generate, and (ii) it operates as a loss distribution

mechanism, the person who does such hazardous

activity (usually a corporation) being in the best

position to spread the loss via insurance and higher

prices for its products (vide Torts by Michael Jones,

4

th

Edn. p. 267).

Further the Supreme Court has held that the doctrine of strict

liability shall be applicable to the public corporation or local

bodies which may be of the social utility, undertaking not working

for private profit.

19.In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. (1993) 2 SCC 746, it has been laid

down by the Supreme Court that grant of compensation in

proceedings under Article 32 & 226 of the Constitution of India for

established violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under

14

WA No. 409 of 2020

Article 21, is an exercise of the Courts under the public law

jurisdiction for penalising the wrong doer and fixing the liability for

the public wrong on the State, which failed in the discharge of its

public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen. The

old doctrine of only relegating the aggrieved to the remedies

available in civil law limits the role of the courts too much, as the

protector and custodian of the indefeasible rights of the citizens.

The courts have the obligation to satisfy the social aspirations of

the citizens because the courts and law are for the people and

expected to respond to their aspirations. A court of law cannot

close its consciousness and aliveness to stark realities. Mere

punishment of the offender cannot give much solace to the family

of the victim-civil action for damages is a long drawn and

cumbersome judicial process. Monetary compensation for

redressal by the Court finding the infringement of the indefeasible

right to life of the citizen is, therefore, a useful and at times

perhaps the only effective remedy to apply balm to the wounds of

the family members of the deceased victim, who may have been

the bread winner of the family.”

20.The admitted fact is not disputed before us that the State of

Chhattisgarh initially by circular dated 09.06.2015 issued through

Revenue and Disaster Department has laid down the guidelines

for grant of compensation/financial assistance to the nearest heir

in cases of loss of life due to natural calamity. Subsequently by

order dated 12

th

June, 2015 further guidelines was issued

whereby the compensation/ financial assistance to be granted

15

WA No. 409 of 2020

has been increased for the loss of life, cripple or injury caused by

attack of predatory wild animals. The language of said order is

reproduced here-in-below :

NRrhlx< 'kklu

ou foHkkx

ea=ky;

egkunh Hkou] u;k jk;iqj

@@vkns’k@@

u;k jk;iqj] fnukad 12 twu] 2015

dzekad ,Q 7&32@2003@10&2 % jkT; 'kklu ,rn~}kjk bl foHkkx ds lela[;d vkns’k fnukad

25 tqykbZ] 2014 dks vf/kdzfer djrs gq,] fgald oU;izkf.k;ksa ;Fkk 'ksj] rsUnqvk] Hkkyw] ydMcX?kk]

HksfM+;k] taxyh lqvj] xkSj] taxyh gkFkh] taxyh dqRrk] exjePN] ?kfM+;ky] ou HkSalk ,oa fl;kj

bR;kfn }kjk i'kqvksa ,oa euq";ksa dks {kfr igqapk;s tkus ij nh tkus okyh {kfriwfrZ@ lgk;rk jkf’k esa

o`f) djrs gq, fuEukuqlkj uohu {kfriwfrZ@ lgk;rk jkf’k fu/kkZfjr djrk gS%&

dzekad fooj.k {kfriwfrZ@lgk;rk jkf’k

1-tugkfu ¼e`R;q gksus ij½ :- 4]00]000@& ¼:i;s pkj yk[k½

2-LFkk;h :i ls viax gksus ij:- 2]00]000@& ¼:i;s nks yk[k½

3-tu?kk;y gksus ij :- 59]100@& ¼:i;s mUlB gtkj] ,d lkS½

dh vf/kdre lhek rd

4-Ik'kq gkfu gksus ij :- 30]000@& ¼:i;s rhl gtkj½ dh

vf/kdre lhek rd

2@& ;g vkns’k rRdky izHkko ls ykxw gksxkA

NRrhlx<+ ds jkT;iky ds uke ls

rFkk vkns’kkuqlkj]

¼vfuy dqekj lkgw½

lfpo

NRrhlx<+ 'kklu] ou foHkkx

21.Now the question whether the victim of death by dog bite can be

given the said benefit of the order of the State Government dated

16

WA No. 409 of 2020

12

th

June 2015. In order to interpret the aim and object of the

State, while issuing such order, it has to be interpreted in the light

of principles of purposive interpretation. A plain reading of the

order would show that the crux of matter speaks of compensation

to the legal heirs of victims or the injured persons who are

attacked by predatory wild animals. Similarly when the attacks

are caused by wild dog/stray dog in a village or city, these stray

dogs/wild dogs can also be termed as ferocious animals which

can be made inclusive to grant compensation as per the order

dated 12

th

June 2015. The Supreme Court in Tirath Singh

Versus Bachittar AIR 1955 SC 830 observed that where the

language of a statute, in its ordinary meaning and grammatical

construction, leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent

purpose of the enactment, or to some inconvenience or absurdity,

hardship or injustice, presumably not intended, a construction

may be put upon which which modifies the meaning of the

words, and even the structure of the sentence.

22.Reading of the aforesaid order dated 12.06.2015 issued by the

State Government would show that the State in its wisdom

thought it proper to extend the helping hand to the people who

lost their lives or limbs or sustained injuries due to attack made

by the wild ferocious animals. When the attacks of stray dogs

take place in the city or village not and at the forest, which results

in death of people, the dog which attacks the human beings can

be termed as a ferocious one as the animal instinct would be the

same as that of animal of forest. Like wise in M.C. Mehta V.

17

WA No. 409 of 2020

Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395, Hon’ble Supreme Court while

explaining the purposive interpretation of law for changing need

has held that it is not necessary for us to consider these

decisions laying down the parameters of this rule because in a

modern industrial society with highly developed scientific

knowledge and technology where hazardous or inherently

dangerous industries are necessary to carry as part of the

developmental programme, this rule evolved in 19

th

Century at a

time when all these developments of science and technology had

not taken place cannot afford any guidance in evolving any

standard of liability consistent with the constitutional norms and

the needs of the present day economy and social structure. We

need not feel inhibited by this rule which was evolved in this

context of a totally different kind of economy. Law has to grow in

order to satisfy the needs of the fast changing society and keep

abreast with the economic developments taking place in the

country. As new situations arise the law has to be evolved in

order to meet the challenge of such new situations. Law cannot

afford to remain static. We have to evolve new principles and lay

down new norms which would adequately deal with the new

problems which arise in a highly industrialized economy.

23.Further in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. NUSLI

Neville Wadia, the Supreme Court held thus -

“51….. With a view to read the provisions of

the Act in a proper and effective manner, we are of

the opinion that literal interpretation, if given, may

give rise to an anomaly or absurdity which must be

avoided. So as to enable a superior court to

18

WA No. 409 of 2020

interpret a statute in a reasonable manner, the

Court must place itself in the chair of a reasonable

legislator/author. So done, the rules of purposive

construction have to be resorted to which would

require the construction of the Act in such a manner

so as to see that the object of the Act is fulfilled,

which in turn would lead the beneficiary under the

statutory scheme to fulfill its constitutional

obligations as held by the court inter-alia in Ashoka

Marketing Ltd. (1990) 4 SCC 406.”

24.Applying the above proposition of law, we are of the opinion that

when the death is caused by rabies infection of stray dog bites it

would also come under the purview of “strict liability” or “no-fault

liability” and interpreting the order of the State which grants

gratuitous compensation for death, cripple and injury caused in

wild animal attacks can be applied to the incidents of a stray dogs

when death is caused by the bite of stray dog.

25.While interpreting the further quantum of compensation by the

Welfare State, we deem it appropriate that the said notification

which was issued in the year 2015 whereby an amount of Rs. 4

lakhs was fixed also needs to be revisited with the passage of

time considering the inflation and growing market price index in

the Society. Therefore, we direct the State to reconsider such

Policy for enhancement of compensation which is granted by

letter dt. 12.06.2015. The State may frame fresh policy taking into

consideration the price index and other ancillary factors for

enhancement of such gratuitous compensation. So far as the

given case in hand, considering the facts and the time which has

passed-by till date, we deem it proper to grant an exgratia

payment of Rs.6,50,000 in each case to the dependent family

members of victims who have died due to stray dog bites. We

19

WA No. 409 of 2020

further observe that if the family of the victim is entitled to prove

the claim for more amount, then in such a case, they have to

resort to the fact finding enquiry by proper legal proceedings as

laid down by Supreme Court in (2016) 13 SCC 504.

26. Now coming back to the other aspect of this issue, various

documents were placed by the State for our perusal with respect

to achievement to eradicate rabies. However, despite all efforts

of State, the unknown fear or illiteracy or casual approach by the

general public at large allowed it to turn it to be fatal.

27.In case of Lukesh Kumar Razak of W.A.No.126 of 2021, the dog

bite occurred on 13.06.2018, he was administered the first does

of vaccine on 18.06.2018. Subsequently, he was asked to come

on different dates i.e., 20.06.2018, 25.06.2018, 02.07.2018 and

16.07.2018. The document shows that after the first dose of

vaccine, he was informed to again visit the hospital to administer

further vaccines.

28.In case of respondent Jamuna Bai, wife of late Marojdhawaj of

W.A.No.127 of 2021, deceased (Marojdhawaj) had a dog bite

one year back. He visited the hospital on 22.04.2018 and did not

take anti viral vaccine and first vaccine was said to have been

taken after two days of the dog bite.

29.In case of respondent Dhanraj Sahu of W.A.153 of 2021, his

son Yuvraj Sahu, aged about 2 years, was attacked by dog on

11.08.2018 and he was also advised to come as per schedule of

vaccine on different dates I.e., 3

rd

, 7

th

, 14

th

and after 21 days, but

20

WA No. 409 of 2020

they did not follow. Eventually when symptoms came, the boy

was admitted in hospital and later he died.

30.In case of respondent Bhaiyalal Gond of W.A. No.409 of 2020,

after the dog bite in the month of October, 2018 no anti viral

injection was administered. When the symptom came to be

noticed, he rushed to the hospital in the month of November,

2018.

31.Therefore, the facts would show that in all the cases, the victims

who are primarily from rural background after the stray dog bites,

fog of uncertainty come to fore to get treated. In all cases, the

victims did not abide by the vaccine schedule, which is required

to kill the virus of rabies. This Court in WPIL No.24/2017 took up

the issue of death by dog-bite in the State of Chhattisgarh. It

appears that the State though has taken measures for treatment,

but since the treatment requires a specific schedule of vaccine,

the general public at large in urban as also in rural areas have not

been made known of awareness of such menace that if the

vaccine schedule is not followed, it may prove to be fatal. The

facts would show that the people who suffer the dog bite due to

lack of awareness have not adhered to the schedule of

immediate antiviral injection which is required after the dog bite.

Therefore, the State being a welfare State in order to curb such

untimely death due to rabies is obliged to educate and alert the

people about the consequences and affect when specific vaccine

schedule is not administered. Therefore, we may observe that

the State may make it known to public by putting hoardings and

21

WA No. 409 of 2020

posters in public places and by giving advertisements in print

and electronic media to bring the lens back for the people to

know the horror caused in case the vaccine schedule is not

followed.

32.It is a turbulent alert to note the affairs of the awareness that

despite the State has kept the vast machinery open for treatment,

people do not adopt, therefore, the only way would be to educate

the mass by different means and in different ways.

33.To conclude, we direct that (i) the ex-gratia payment to the

respondents as per the notification from occurrence of stray dog

bite death would be Rs.6,50,000/- and would be paid to the

dependent of each victim family within a period of 45 days, failing

which, it will carry interest @ 6% per annum; (ii) Apart from the

aforesaid gratuitous payment, the family of the victim would be

entitled to claim their right for further compensation, if so advised,

which would be dependent on the fact finding enquiry of each

individual case ; and (iii) the State would be obliged to give a

wide publicity of anti-viral dog bite injection of treatment schedule

by way of public posters and advertisements in print media and

different means of communication through the health workers.

34.With the aforesaid observations, all the writ appeals are allowed

to the above extent by modifying the order passed by the learned

Single Judge.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Goutam Bhaduri) (N. K. Chandravanshi)

Judge Judge

R a o / Ayushi

22

WA No. 409 of 2020

Head-notes

(i) When the death is caused by rabies infection of a stray

dog bite, it would come under the purview of “strict liability” or

“no-fault liability” of State and is to be included in the line of

predatory-wild-animals’ attack to grant compensation as per the

Policy of State.

(i) tc fdlh O;fDr dh e`R;q vkokjk dqRrs ds dkVus ds dkj.k jscht ds

ladze.k ds QyLo:i gksrh gS rc ;g jkT; ds **dBksj nkf;Ro** vFkok **=qfV

ds fcuk nkf;Ro** fl)kar ds ifjf/k esa vk,xk ,oa jkT; dh uhfr ds vuqlkj

izfrdj iznku djus gsrq bls f’kdkjh &oU;&thoksa }kjk fd;s x, geys dh

ifjf/k esa lfEefyr fd;k tkuk pkfg,A

(ii) The State is obliged to undertake a widespread

campaign to educate and alert the people of the serious

consequences of stray dog bites and strict immediate follow-up

action of vaccine schedule of anti-rabies.

(ii) vkokjk dqRrksa ds dkVus ds xaHkhj ifj.kkeksa ds laca/k esa yksxksa dks f’kf{kr

o tkx:d djus ds fy, ,d O;kid izlkj vfHk;ku pykus rFkk ,aVh&jscht

Vhdkdj.k dk;Zdze ds lapkyu ds fy, rRdky Bksl dne mBk;s tkus gsrq

jkT; ck/; gSA