State of Himachal Pradesh v. Smt. Halli Devi, AIR 2000 H. P 113

                                      R. L Khurana, J.

 The petitioner through this petition claimed compensation in tort for damages for  injuries sustained by the claimant as a result of attack by ferocious wild animal i.e . black bear. The question before the Court to adjudicate was whether the Wild Life Protection Act 1972 provides any sort of compensation is the form of damages to be awarded as a result of attack by wild animals? Whether the State is liable under the Law of Tort for payment of  compensation?

 The respondent, was a resident of the District of Chambaand  while going to her cattle shed for the purpose of feeding her cows, was attacked by a black bear as a result of which she  sustained the serious injuries: like loss of complete eye sight, compound fracture of left mandible, nasal bone, left forearm etc. As a consequent, her permanent disability was assessed at 100 % by medical authorities. Thus a claim of Rs. 1,00,000 was made against the Divisional Forest Officer. It was averred that the Divisional Forest Officer, under the scheme for the preservation of wildlife, had let loose the Bear and other protected wild animals in the Jungle and unfortunately killing of such animals is also prohibited by the State Government. As a result of attack by the black Bear, the respondent suffered grievous injuries and sustained 100% permanent disability. She has spent about Rs. 50,000 on her medical treatment. In claiming damages, the respondent  alleged that she suffered due to the acts of omission and commission of the defendants.

 The defendants on their part, denied liability for the damages, and for letting loose the black Bear. They raised several objections to the petition, including one of jurisdiction. They further claimed that Sec. 60 of the Wildlife [Protection ]Act, 1972, provides that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any officer or employee of the Central Government or State Government for anything which is  done in good faith. Hence this suit is hit by the above section.

 The Court while admitting the petition under the civil provision, held that claiming damages for the injuries sustained as result of attack by a wild animal would not be an action for damages caused by an act which has been done in good faith by the State or its officers/ employees under the Act. Further the Court held that to succeed in claiming damages under the tortuous liability of the defendant, the onus was heavily on the plaintiff show that damages, was sustained by her due to some act of omission or commission of the defendants. The plaintiff had miserably failed to discharge such onus. There is no provision under the Wild Life [ Protection] Act, 1972 for providing reliefs to a victim, attacked by wild animals. Decision of the State Government, to grant gratuitous relief to victims, was a welcome sign of a democratic Government, but providing for such reliefs would not tantamount to admission of liability by the State, for tort, or death or injuries by wild animals.