Kerala High Court orders government to fully compensate wild animal attack victims

The Kerala High Court has ruled that the state government, as owner and custodian of wild animals, must compensate victims of wild animal attacks based on the magnitude of loss suffered, establishing that the existing ex gratia scheme cannot be the sole remedy.

Justice C.P. Mohammed Nias dismissed an appeal by the Wildlife Warden, Kurichiyadu Range, Sulthan Bathery, and other Forest authorities who challenged a ₹2 lakh compensation award to the family of a man killed in an elephant attack. The court upheld earlier decisions by the Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery, and the District Court, Wayanad, which granted ₹1,78,000 to the victim's family and held Forest authorities responsible for the death.

Ex gratia scheme not the only recourse

The Forest department had argued that lower courts ignored the Kerala Rules for Payment of Compensation to Victims of Attack by Wild Animals, 1980, which capped compensation at ₹20,000. However, Justice Nias held that the Rules were formulated as an ex gratia scheme and could not be considered the sole remedy available to citizens who suffer loss of life or injury from wild animal attacks.

Negligence in preventive measures

The family of Scaria, the victim, had contended that his death while walking on a panchayat road was caused by negligence and carelessness of Forest officials. After filing several petitions, the department initially provided only ₹20,000 as compensation. The family then issued a legal notice demanding ₹2 lakh and filed a compensation claim before the trial court limited to ₹1.80 lakh.

The Forest department defended itself by claiming the deceased was intoxicated and that his death resulted from his own negligence, asserting it had taken sufficient precautionary measures to prevent wild animals from entering private properties.

The sub court, however, found that the incident occurred on a panchayat road where authorities had failed to install power fencing lines and trenches along the forest boundary to prevent wild animals from leaving forest land and entering private properties. The district court affirmed this finding.

The judgment establishes a significant legal precedent for compensation claims in human-wildlife conflict cases, moving beyond fixed ex gratia payments to compensation reflecting actual loss.

Source: The Hindu