Unregistered Agreement Of Sale Entered Before Attachment Cannot Defeat Decree-Holder’s Claim: Andhra Pradesh High Court No Presumption That Joint Family Possesses Joint Property; Female Hindu Absolute Owner Of Property Purchased In Her Name: Allahabad High Court Age Determination Must Strictly Follow Hierarchy Of Documents Under JJ Act: Orissa High Court Acquits Man Of POCSO Charges Once 'C' Form Declarations Are Signed, Burden Shifts To Buyer To Prove Payment Of Outstanding Dues: Madras High Court Section 213 Succession Act No Bar To Eviction Suit If Claim Is Based On Landlord-Tenant Relationship, Not Title Under Will: Bombay High Court Meritorious Candidate Wrongfully Denied Appointment Entitled To Notional Seniority & Old Pension Scheme: J&K & Ladakh High Court 6-Year Delay In Propounding Will & Hostile Attesting Witness Constitute 'Grave Suspicious Circumstances': Delhi High Court Refuses Probate Section 319 CrPC Power Cannot Be Exercised Based On FIR Or Section 161 Statements: Allahabad High Court Quashes Summoning Of Unmarried Sisters Bail Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Recovery Proceedings; Court Can't Order Sale Of Accused's Property: Supreme Court Able-Bodied Husband Cannot Defeat Maintenance Claim By Projecting Income Below Minimum Wages: Delhi High Court Recording Section 313 CrPC Statement Before Cross-Examination Of Prosecution Witness Does Not Vitiate Trial: Karnataka High Court Murder By Unknown Assailants Is Not 'Accidental Death' Under Mukhymantri Kisan Bima Yojna: Allahabad High Court Section 311 CrPC | Court Not A Passive Bystander, Must Summon Material Witness If Essential For Just Decision: Rajasthan High Court GST Act Does Not Prima Facie Prohibit Consolidated Show-Cause Notices For Multiple Years: Bombay HC Refers Issue To Larger Bench 90% Burn Injuries No Bar To Making Statement; Dying Declaration Can Be Sole Basis For Conviction If Found Truthful: Madhya Pradesh 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