
Kerala High Court: State Must Compensate Wild Animal Attack Victims
Kerala High Court rules State liable for wild animal attack compensation, dismissing Forest department appeal in elephant attack death case.
The Kerala High Court has ruled that the State government, as the owner and custodian of wild animals, is liable to compensate victims of wild animal attacks in proportion to the loss suffered. The judgment came as Justice C.P. Mohammed Nias dismissed an appeal by the Wildlife Warden, Kurichiyadu Range, Sulthan Bathery, and other Forest authorities.
The appeal challenged an award of ₹2 lakh to the family of a man who died in an elephant attack. The High Court upheld the earlier findings of the Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery, and the District Court, Wayanad, which had granted ₹1,78,000 to the victim's family and held the Forest authorities responsible for the death.
The Forest department had argued that the lower courts ignored the Kerala Rules for Payment of Compensation to Victims of Attack by Wild Animals, 1980, which fixed compensation at ₹20,000. The High Court, however, observed that these Rules were framed as an ex gratia scheme and could not be considered the sole remedy available to citizens who suffer loss of life or injury from wild animal attacks.
The victim, Scaria, died while walking on a panchayat road. His family contended that Forest officials were negligent and careless, noting that the department had initially paid ₹20,000 after several petitions. The family had served a legal notice demanding ₹2 lakh, and the compensation claim before the trial court was limited to ₹1.80 lakh.
The Forest department claimed the deceased was intoxicated and that his death resulted from his own negligence. It also maintained that sufficient precautionary measures had been taken to prevent wild animals from entering private properties.
The Sub Court, however, found that the incident occurred on a panchayat road and that the authorities had failed to install power fencing lines and trenches along the forest boundary to prevent wild animals from leaving forest land. The District Court affirmed this decision, and the High Court has now upheld it.