Stray Dog Menace In Delhi Is A Serious Issue Affecting Human Life & Dignity: Delhi HC Grants 2.5L Compensation For Death Of 5-Month-Old Infant

The Court reiterated that in cases involving the violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, individuals were entitled to seek remedies under public law, including the relief for grant of monetary compensation. However, to attract the maxim res ipsa loquitur, the conclusiveness of the sole and direct responsibility of the State was not exhibited by facts in the case.

A Single Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed, “It is pertinent to observe here that the stray dog menace in Delhi is a serious issue affecting human life and dignity. Undeniably, the relationship between humans and dogs is at times a relationship of compassion and unconditional love. The responsible authorities should endeavour to manage the menace with the same compassion to ensure equilibrium in the living conditions of both, humans and dogs. It cannot be gainsaid that the issue requires a multi-faceted response, fostering an environment of empathy and balanced co-existence.”

Advocate Ankit Jain appeared for the petitioner, while CGSC Pratima N. Lakra represented the respondents.

The petition was filed by the mother of the deceased seeking compensation following the death of her son, who was attacked by a stray dog inside their house. The petitioner sought compensation from Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and other government entities, accusing them of negligence in controlling the stray dog menace.

The High Court pointed out that Section 399 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 empowered the MCD to enforce dog registration and control measures in Delhi, including mandatory collars, detention of unregistered dogs, and destruction of strays or rabid animals.

“Even though MCD has a statutory duty to control and maintain stray dogs within its territorial jurisdiction, as explicated in the aforementioned provisions, however, the said duty does not extend to the private premises of the citizens. The admitted position herein is that the incident occurred within the four corners of the petitioner‟s house and not in any public place,” the Court remarked.

Therefore, the Court held that MCD could not be directly and solely held responsible for preventing such incidents as the duty of care towards the child primarily rested with the petitioner and her family.

The Court noted that “the record also does not clarify as to whether the dog that bit the deceased was a stray or a leashed dog that had been abandoned by its owner.” The distinction between the two versions of the incident was significant for the legal implications, particularly with respect to liability and the duty of care.

Consequently, the Court observed, “The absence of clear evidence establishing the responsibility of State instrumentalities prevents this Court from applying res ipsa loquitur maxim and holding MCD negligent in the instant case. A meticulous scrutiny of the breach of duty alleged by the parties is required so as to establish whether any negligence by the petitioner also contributed to the eventuality of the incident or if the statutory authorities are solely liable for their failure to address the danger posed by stray dogs, in the instant case.”

However, the Court took a sympathetic view of the case and granted ex-gratia lump compensation to the petitioner for the tragic loss of her 5-month-old child.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition.

Cause Title: Geeta Devi v. Govt Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:7468)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Ankit Jain, Brijesh Chaudhary, Madhav Bhatia, Shreyas Shankar Joshi, Jai Bansal and Abhishek Verma

Respondents: CGSC Pratima N. Lakra; SC Ranjeet Panday; Advocates Sonia Arora, Arun Birbal, Varun Gupta, Chandan Prajapati, Yashika Garg, Mansha and Surya Ketu Tomar

Click here to read/download the Judgment