Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice C. Pratheep Kumar held that the principle of strict liability applies to the owner and mahouts of an elephant that fatally attacked a devotee during a temple procession. The court dismissed an appeal challenging the compensation of Rs.10,93,000 awarded by the trial court, confirming that defendants were liable regardless of proven negligence. The final direction upheld the trial court's decree and apportioned liability among the defendants and the insurer.

The civil dispute arose following an elephant attack that occurred on 24 April 2008 during a temple procession in Kottayam District. The original plaintiff, Vincent, filed a suit for compensation, claiming severe injuries from an elephant named Bastin Vinayashankar, which belonged to the first defendant. Vincent later succumbed to these injuries, and his widow and minor children were impleaded as additional plaintiffs.

Also Read: Nine Years In Jail Without Proof Beyond Doubt | Supreme Court Slams Conviction Based On 'Misreading Of Evidence' And 'Ignored Striking Features' | Acquits All Eleven Accused In Triple Murder

The plaintiffs contended that Vincent, an ardent devotee, was participating in a procession organized by Kuttikkattu Bhagavathi Devaswom. Acting on the request of the temple authorities, Vincent mounted the elephant along with two others. The procession reached near Moolavattom Railway crossing at around 4 p.m. when the elephant ran amok. The mahouts, defendants 2 and 3, allegedly fled the scene, failing to control the elephant. The animal attacked Vincent, causing traumatic injuries, including traumatic paraplegia, spinal fractures, and pelvic and femoral fractures. He was hospitalized at the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam until 2 June 2008, and later died on 11 July 2009.

The plaintiffs claimed Rs.33,72,000 in compensation. The fourth respondent, an insurance company, was the insurer of the elephant, and the fifth respondent, Kuttikkattu Bhagavathi Devaswom, was the religious organization involved in the procession.

In his written statement, the first defendant denied liability, asserting that Vincent and his friend were intoxicated and provoked the elephant by hanging on its tusk. He maintained the animal was generally well-behaved and under control.

The insurer admitted the existence of a valid insurance policy but limited its liability to Rs.1,00,000 for any one accident in a year, as per the policy terms.

The fifth defendant claimed it had no direct role in organizing the elephant or procession management and distanced itself from the incident.

The trial court examined PWs 1 to 4 and DWs 1 to 3. The plaintiffs relied on Exhibits A1 to A15, while the defendants produced Exhibits B1 to B3. The trial court held that the elephant attack led to Vincent's injuries and death and awarded Rs.10,93,000 in compensation with 9% interest per annum.

The first defendant challenged this finding in RFA No. 763 of 2016. The main questions raised were whether the principle of strict liability applied to such an incident and whether the compensation amount required revision.

The Court noted that Vincent's death resulting from the elephant attack was not seriously contested. "From the evidence of PW2, the child of the deceased and PW3, an independent witness... the elephant pulling down her father, stamping and beating with its trunk... corroborated the evidence."

DW2, the veterinary surgeon who issued Exhibit B1 certificate, stated: "Though the elephant was in normal condition in the morning, later on it became violent and attacked Vincent... had to tranquilise the elephant by firing tranquiliser."

The appellant relied on Exhibit A12 police final report, arguing a third party named M.S. Rajeev provoked the elephant by hanging on its tusk. "It is true... final report was filed... against one M.S. Rajeev... From Exhibit A13 judgment... he was acquitted."

Regarding Exhibit B3, the purported dying declaration by Vincent, the Court recorded: "Said statement... was not proved by examining the officer... therefore... not proved."

The Bench stated: "There is no reliable oral evidence to prove the exact reason for the violence of the elephant... even then... it can be presumed that the elephant ran amok because of the involvement of a 3rd person... similarly... no willful negligence on the part of defendants 1 to 3."

The plaintiffs argued that strict liability applied regardless of negligence. Citing precedent, the Court stated: "Even though there was no intent or negligence on the part of the owner... he is liable for the damages caused by such animal."

Quoting from Madhavan v. Raja Raja Varma [1993 (1) KLT 616], the Court reiterated: "Liability of a person for any harm done by his animal... does not depend on... negligence... but upon the nature of the class to which such animal belongs..."

Similarly, in Veeramani Chettiar v. Davis [2012 (4) KHC 114], the Division Bench held: "Elephant is a dangerous animal and hence its owner/keeper is strictly liable... Contentions that... provoked by the wrongful act of a third party... or well-trained, are unsustainable defence in law."

The Court further referred to Zamoodiri Raja of Calicut v. Puthiyaveettil Aysha Beevi [MANU/KE/2212/2016] where it was held: "In such circumstances, the principle of strict liability applies."

On compensation, the Court noted the trial court's methodology. The notional income was taken as Rs.5,000, with 30% added for future prospects, multiplier of 14, and 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses. This yielded Rs.7,28,000 as loss of dependency.

Additional heads included:

Rs.1,00,000 for pain and suffering, Rs.30,000 for treatment expenses, Rs.75,000 for consortium, Rs.10,000 for funeral expenses, Rs.30,000 for mental shock and Rs.20,000 for bystander expenses.

The Court referred to Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram [2011 (13) SCC 236] and observed: "Notional income of a coolie in 2009 will come to Rs.7,000... if taken so... loss of disability alone will come to Rs.10,19,200... amount awarded not at all on the higher side."

The Court concluded that the appeal had no merit. "I do not find any grounds to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the trial court."

Also Read: Preventive Detention Based On Subjective Satisfaction Not Open To Objective Review | Grounds Were Precise And Proximate | J&K High Court Upholds Detention Under Public Safety Act

"Admittedly, as per Exhibit B2 insurance policy, the liability of the 4th defendant is limited to Rs.1,00,000... Therefore, defendants 1 to 3 are liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.9,93,000 along with interest at the rate ordered by the trial court."

"In the result, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court."

"All pending interlocutory applications shall stand closed."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellant: Sri. K. Jaju Babu (Senior Advocate), Sri. Arjun Santhosh, Smt. M. U. Vijayalakshmi

For the Respondents: Shri. S. Ranjit (K/250/1999), Sri. George Cherian (Senior Advocate), Sri. B. Krishna Mani, Smt. K. S. Santhi, Sri. T. Venugopal, Sri. Gokul Das V. V. H., Smt. Vineetha Susan Abraham

Case Title: K.R. Antony v. Kunjumol & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:38257

Case Number: RFA No. 763 of 2016

Bench: Justice C. Pratheep Kumar

[Read/Download order]