MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Stray Dogs killed by child - Proposes ₹10 Lac Compensation for Family: Allahabad HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Recently, the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow heard a PIL that it had spontaneously filed in April 2022 regarding an incident that occurred in Lucknow in which stray dogs attacked a young child and his sister, resulting in the tragic death of the child and severe injuries to his sister.

At the time of the incident, the court had ordered that the surviving girl receive all possible medical treatment without cost.

In response, the Registrar of King George Medical University, Lucknow filed an affidavit stating that the injured girl received the necessary medical care.

Mohd Qumail Haider, the attorney representing the girl's parents, expressed satisfaction with the care she received. In addition, he requested that monetary compensation be given to the child's family.

The court stated that in an earlier order it had ordered monetary compensation to be given to the family and noted that in response, the Additional Advocate General had produced a letter from DM Lucknow in which Rs 1,50,000 had been approved.

However, the court noted that it is undisputed that human life was lost in the incident and that it appears to be the result of Nagar Nigam, Lucknow's negligence.

If the State or one of its instrumentalities fails to carry out its statutory or otherwise required obligations and duties, resulting in the loss of human life, the deceased's surviving family members must be provided with some form of compensation, whether monetary or not.

The Bench of Justices Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Rajnish Kumar opined that the family of the deceased child should receive Rs 10,000,000 and ordered the Lucknow Nagar Nigam to file an affidavit explaining why the proposed sum cannot be allocated.

One Kamal Sharma filed an intervention application stating that he has been involved with the welfare of animals and is a member of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. He raised some concerns regarding the welfare of the animals, and the court agreed to hear his concerns.

The court also requested that Amicus Curiae Advocates Vijay Dixit, Abhishek Pratap, and Mohit Pandey submit a brief detailing the legal provisions that allow monetary compensation to be awarded to the child's family.

The Bench also appointed Advocate Akash Prasad as Amicus Curiae and asked him to address the court on the issues that have arisen in the case, and then scheduled the case for further hearing on August 30.

D.D:08-07-2022

Suo-Moto Re- Menace Created By Stray Dogs versus State of UP & Ors.

Latest Legal News