Benefit Of Acquittal Can Be Extended To Non-Appealing Co-Accused If Prosecution Case Is Found To Be Fundamentally Unreliable: Madras High Court Hindu Marriage Act | Petition For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Serves As A Valid Defence Against Allegations Of Desertion: Kerala High Court Employee Has No Vested Right To Seek Or Retain Additional Charge; Writ Petition Not Maintainable To Challenge Its Withdrawal: Madhya Pradesh High Court Insurance Act | Insurer Cannot Waive Statutory Deadline For Premium Payment Under Bank Guarantee; No Estoppel Against Statute: NCDRC Absence Of Crime Number In Inquest Report & Discrepancy In Sec 157 CrPC Special Report Renders FIR Doubtful: Allahabad High Court MTP Act  | Termination Of Pregnancy Beyond 24 Weeks Permissible If It Involves Risk To Life Or Grave Injury To Mental Health Of The Victim: Gujarat High Court Section 174A IPC | FIR Cannot Be Quashed If Process Server Reports Indicate Failure To Serve At Ordinary Residence: Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines Insolvency Petition | Transferees Of Debtor Cannot Substitute Debtor To Rebut Allegation Of Intent To Defeat Creditors Under Section 6(b) Provincial Insolvency Act: High Court Medical Negligence | Doctor Cannot Be Held Liable For Choosing One Reasonable Course Of Treatment Over Another: Bombay High Court Cruelty | Non-Registration Of FIR Cannot Be Ground To Discredit Testimony Of Wife Seeking Divorce: Jharkhand High Court No Deception At Inception: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Revive Cheating Charges Against Borrower After One-Time Settlement Consumer Protection Act | Doctrine Of 'Caveat Emptor' Subservient To 'Caveat Venditor'; Auctioneer Liable For Sale Of Encumbered Vehicle: State Commission Section 127 CrPC | Past Compromise Not An Eternal Estoppel To Bar Wife From Seeking Enhancement In Maintenance: Orissa High Court States Can Prescribe Higher Qualifications Than UGC Norms, Additional Tests Promote Meritocracy: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cancel Registered Sale Deed Or Adjudicate Title Disputes: Telangana High Court Principal Employer Cannot Abdicate Statutory Liability For Overtime Wages Of Contract Labour Despite Contractual Indemnity Clauses: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory For Invoking SC/ST Act Provisions If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked For Re-valuation Of Structures Once Compensation Dispute Is Adjudicated Under Section 64 RFCTLARR Act: Telangana High Court Revenue Village Naming | Government Must Ensure Names Do Not Reflect Any Person, Caste, Or Religion Under Policy Guidelines: Rajasthan High Court Section 138 NI Act | Complainant Must Prove Proprietorship Of Firm To Establish Status As 'Payee' Or 'Holder In Due Course': Himachal Pradesh High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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