JUDGMENT
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
1. This appeal has been brought by the defendants against the judgment of Lower Appellate Court dated 31.01.2002, who had modified the decree of Trial Court and awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for the death of Mohan Lai, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of decree of the Trial Court till the date of realisation.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case are that Mohan Lal, son of the plaintiff, was a student of 7th Class and was studying in a School at Morni. On 10.08.1989, while he was going to his school alongwith his cousin Yad Ram on a public passage, they were attacked by a leopard who carried away both Mohan Lal and Yad Ram. Mutilated body of Mohan Lal was lateron recovered from the forest, though Yad Ram could not be traced. The plaintiff filed suit for mandatory injunction seeking direction to the defendants to provide employment to the son of plaintiffs and to pay adequate compensation, in lieu of death of their son Mohan Lal. The plaintiffs alleged that leopard was a man eater. Various complaints were made to the concerned officials but no action was taken which resulted into the loss of valuable human life of Mohan Lal. The incident of the death of Mohan Lal by leopard was also published in newspapers. The defendants had assured the plaintiffs with financial help and to provide job but failed on their promise. Therefore, the plaintiffs had to file the suit seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
3. In the written statement, the defendant admitted that the dead body of Mohan Lal was found in the forest near village Chaila but asserted that the cause of death could not be ascertained. It was disputed that Mohan Lal died on account of any attack by a panther. It was also denied that the defendants had not taken any action on the complaints. Rather it was asserted that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- has been paid by the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala to the plaintiff Parmanand as compensation on humanitarian grounds, the plaintiff filed replication to the written statement and following issues were framed by the Trial Court:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction as claimed? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any compensation? OPP
3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standing to file the suit? OPD
6. Relief.
4. The trial Court decreed the suit concluding that the plaintiffs were entitled to compensation in accordance with the compensation rates as mentioned in the list Mark 1(A).
5. The defendants did not challenge the finding of the Trial Court by way of cross-objection or cross-appeal. Thus the findings of the Trial Court to the effect that Mohan Lal had died on account of attack by leopard and the State was negligent, was upheld. The plaintiff came in appeal before the First Appellate Court against the inadequacy of the compensation. The first Appellate Court after taking into consideration decision rendered by this Court in 1999(1) A.C.C. 636 (D.B.) titled as Punjab Civil and Consumer Welfare Front (Regd), Banur v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Anr. decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case reported as 1999(11) A.C.C. 1 titled as Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sushila Devi 2 held that the plaintiffs are entitled to the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Since this Court had granted compensation of Rs. 1.0 , 0/ in the case of death of three years old child whereas the deceased Mohan Lal was 15 years of age and a student of VIIth Class.
6. The only argument raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the compensation that has been awarded is excessive and the award of the Trial Court should be maintained which is based upon Mark 1(A) which is an order of the Government dated 29.05.1996 whereby the compensation has to be awarded to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- in case of death of a minor due to attack of wild animal like leopard etc.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also referred to the question pf law framed in para 8 of the memo of appeal which is reproduced as under:
i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case first appellate court have committed an error of law in decreeing the suit?
ii) Whether appellate court has committed an error of law in relying upon the authority 1999(1) A.C.C. 636 (D.B.)?
iii) Whether the appellate court has committed an error of law in relying upon the authority 1999(11) A.C.C. 1?
iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation?
8. Repelling the argument of the appellant, learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has submitted that the order Mark 1(A) is a guideline where the Government has prescribed the minimum compensation mat has to be given de-hors the compensation assessed by the competent Court of law. It has been argued that the compensation provided under order Mark 1(A) which is minimum prescribed and has to be awarded merely on application to the department concerned but if the claimant is not satisfied with the amount awarded under Mark 1(A), he can always knock the doors of the Court for payment of adequate compensation.
9. The counsel for respondent reiterated toe decision rendered in the case of Punjab Civil and consumer Welfare Front (Regd), Banur (supra) and submitted that in that case death of three year old child occurred due to drowning in an uncovered manhole, for which this Court had awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- whereas the deceased was 15 years of age and was studying.
10. I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties and have perused the record.
11. The plaintiff had approached the Court for seeking two reliefs namely employment to the son of the plaintiff in the Government service and for compensation in lieu of the death of Mohan Lai. The plaintiffs had relinquished their prayer for employment but pressed the prayer for grant of compensation. Indeed, it is the duty of the State to protect the lives of its citizens. In this case, the State had remained negligent in as much as Mohan Lal was killed by leopard on a public passage while going to school. The leopard had come from adjoining forest area which was reserved forest fully under the thumb and control of the State. It was the duty of the State to ensure mat such wild animals do not trespass in the human habitation and for mat purpose should have provided security guards or other arrangement. Since the State has failed to perform their duty of protecting the human life and admittedly the leopard had cut short the life of a 15 year old school going boy, in my view, compensation of amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is not excessive specifically in view of the decision rendered by this Court in the case Punjab Civil and Consumer Welfare Front (Regd), Banur (supra) where Rs. 1,00,000/- was awarded to a three year old child who was drowned in an uncovered manhole. So far as the order Mark 1(A) is concerned, it is only guideline for providing immediate assistance to the aggrieved family as a bare minimum but it does not curtail the right of the plaintiff to such adequate compensation from the respondent through court of law.
12. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court and I am also of the view that no question of law much less substantial is involved in this appeal. Consequently, the present appeal, being devoid of any merits is dismissed. No costs.