Law Does Not Countenance Resurrection Of Stale Claims Through Inventive Drafting: Karnataka High Court Rejects 20-Year-Old Partition Dispute CPC Provisions Cannot Be Used to Transfer Consumer Complaints Across States: NCDRC Invokes Section 62 to End Forum-Shifting Ordeal in Nirmal Spinning Mills Case FSSA Provisions Prevail Over PFA Act In Cases Of Overlapping Jurisdiction, Prosecution Under Old Act Impermissible: J&K High Court Motive Pales Into Significance When Direct Ocular Evidence Establishes Crime; Enmity Is A Double-Edged Sword: Allahabad High Court Plaintiff Cannot Succeed Merely On Weakness Of Defence; Initial Burden To Prove Claim Rests On Claimant: Madras High Court Witness Threats Noted By Higher Courts Disentitle Convict To Suspension Of Sentence: Gujarat High Court Family Court Orders Must Be Enforced Immediately, Pendency Of Applications No Excuse For Disobedience: Delhi High Court 'Fraud And Justice Never Dwell Together': Karnataka High Court Reverses Order To Grant Land Based On Fabricated Records Development Authority Competent To Sanction Land Use Conversion From Residential To Nursing Home If Permitted Under Master Plan & Zoning Regulations: Allahabad High Court Notification Changing Import Policy From 'Free' To 'Restricted' Operative Only From Exact Time Of Publication In E-Gazette: Delhi High Court On Name Of Protection of the Complainer Excluding Relevant Defence Evidence in Sexual Offences Trials May Breach Fair Trial Rights: UK Supreme Court Boundaries In Sale Deed Prevail Over Discrepancy In Property Description; Adverse Possession Begins From Date Of Hostile Notice: Punjab & Haryana HC Supreme Court of UK Upholds HMRC Decision: Professional Fees Incurred by Investment Holding Company Are Capital Expenditure Criminal Law Cannot Be Used To Silence Citizens Questioning Legality Of Police Action: Madras High Court Quashes Obstruction Case Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Centre To Treat Ashok Khemka As Empaneled For Future Assignments, Says Denying Relaxation Granted To Peers Is Discriminatory Section 34 Court Cannot Substitute Arbitrator’s Plausible View With Its Own; Not Bound By Technical Rules Of Evidence Act: Madras High Court Article 227 Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Reopen Decrees Finalized Four Decades Ago: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Challenge To 1985 Order Daughter Has No Right To Inherit Agricultural Land If Succession Opened Before 2005 HSA Amendment: Delhi High Court Rejects Plaint Indian Trust Act Inapplicable To Public Religious Endowments; Sale Of Charity Property Without HR&CE Commissioner's Permission Void: Madras High Court Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Collateral Warranties Under Construction Contracts FIR Quashed Against Newsclick: PMLA Proceedings Cannot Stand Alone Without A Predicate Offence, Rules Delhi High Court Assessee Claiming TDS Exemption On "Reimbursement" To Non-Residents Must Obtain Mandatory Tax Determination Under Section 195(2): Madras High Court

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