NitinWalia v. Union of India AIR 2001 Delhi 140

R.F.A. No. 220 of 1996, D/-19-10-2000

Arun Kumar and A. K Sikri, JJ.

Wild Life [Protection] Act [53 of 1972], Sec. 38 C, 38H.

Tort law of Negligence

Torts-Negligence-compensation-child of three years age visiting the zoo-Tigress inside bars suddenly grabbed his hand through railing and pulled it in–Resulting in amputation of hand and it in permanent disability-Negligence of zoo authorities proved-claim for compensation of Rs. 5 lacs with interest-Not unreasonable in view of gravity of injury and physical pain and mental agony suffered by child.

At the tender age of three years, NitinWalia, appellant in the present case lost his right arm in an unfortunate incident. It has crippled him for life. It happened on 29^th March, 1988. This boy of three years of age was feeling excited and jubilant when he visited NationalZoologicalPark, Delhi along with his family members to see various animals kept in the Zoo. His joy was boundless when he reached the enclosure where the white tigress was being kept. He was with his father and other family members. All the family members were keenly watching the tigress, while the boy reached near the railing. The white tigress all of a sudden grabbed his hand through the railing and pulled it in. Other family members reached out to rescue and tried to put the tigress away. However, by that time irreversible harm had been done. Tigress had bit the right arm of the appellant. Profusely bleeding, in sever pain and agony the child was taken to the hospital situated in the Zoo but the doctors in the zoo expressed their inability to provide any treatment for want of any medicine or facilities for that purpose. It is irony that the Zoological Park of National fame where large species of animals are kept, which include ferocious ones, there are no medical facilities to meet such eventualities. Traumatic and tensed, father of the appellant rushed to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. Right arm of the appellant had to be amputated up to two and half inches from the shoulder to avoid further loss of nay of the limbs or child’s life. Appellant remained an indoor patient for more than one month and was discharged only on 25^th April, 1988. He has not to spend rest of his life without a vital organ of the body which impairs and affects the proper functioning of a person. He has been rendered permanently disabled to the extent of 100 %. The appellant considered the respondent, namely, Zoo authorities responsible for the incident in not taking proper care to confine wild animals in the zoo, suit for damages was filed. Initially the claim was made for Rs. 7,10,000, later it was confined to Rs. 5 lacs and interest @ 18 % p. a. During the pendency of the proceeding in the trial court an interim compensation of Rs. 40,000/ was granted.

It was argued on behalf of the appellant that in case of dangerous animals, the liability to take care is absolute and it is only on account of carelessness of the authorities of the Zoological Park of the Government of India, Mathura Road, New Delhi in not providing fine wiremesh in the cage that resulted in appellant putting his hand through the bars and losing his arm for which he was entitled to damages.

The question to be decided is as to whether it was the negligence of three years old boy in reaching up to the railing and exposing himself to the risk of being attacked by the tigress or was it the negligence of the zoo authorities in no taking proper care to ensure that such incidents do not take place.

The Court had not hesitation in holding that the authorities had to take the brunt of the responsibility as it is their bounden duty to ensure that wild animals in the Zoo are kept and confined in such a manner that they are incapable of causing damage or injury to the visitors to the Zoo. Zoological park is a place where animals and birds, which may be brought from all parts of the world, are kept. The purpose of visiting zoo and see these animals is not only entertainment but education to the visitors. They are able to see, amuse themselves and learn about these animals without having the trouble of going to different places where these animals are the natural habitants. Animals are of various species. They include wild and ferocious animals as well. Zoo authorities are well aware of the fact that people of all ages would visit the Zoo. They are well aware about the habits of various animals. They are also well aware of the danger in letting loose wild animals i.e. the reason that wild and ferocious animals are kept behind iron bars and in cages. The Zoo authorities have to keep these animals in such a manner that under no circumstance these animals are able to cause any damage or injury to any visitors. The respondents and their employees were aware of the mischievous propensity of the white tigress kept in the Zoo. It was , therefore, their responsibility to keep it in such a manner that no such untoward incident takes place. After this incident respondents have fenced the area by putting wire mesh on iron bars. This itself shows that type of caution which was required was not taken earlier.

The Court examined the case on the test of Negligence vis-à-vis, Duty of care by the respondent, Strict liability: As keeper of dangerous animals, and Duty as occupier of the premises, viz. ZoologicalPark. The Court concluded, on the basis of the common law rules, which to a very large extent influence legislations in India, that the rule Res Ipsa Loquitur was established and the same shall come to the rescue to award damages to the appellant. The Court had no hesitation in holding the respondents absolute liable to the above incident.

The Court had no hesitation is awarding an compensation of Rs. 5 lacs, and thought that it was totally reasonable, from which Rs. 75,000 could be attributed to pain and suffering, Rs. 75,000 for loss of amenities or happiness, Rs. 1,00,000 towards disfigurement, Rs. 1,00,000 for loss of expectation of life. In so far as pecuniary damages are concerned, the appellant produced the evidence to show Medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 8,000. Thus a Decree in the sum of Rs. 5 lacs along with interest at the rate of 12%p.a was awarded.