Madras High Court orders Rs. 25 lakh compensation, compassionate appointment to woman injured by temple elephant in 1999

It is the basic expectation of every human being to live a healthy and active life, the Madras High Court said recently while ordering the State to provide Rs 25 lakh compensation in addition to employment on compassionate grounds to a woman who was injured in an attack by a temple elephant (Sindhu @ Sindhu Lakshmi v. Principal Secretary, HR&CE Department and ors)..The 23-year-old woman had suffered grievous injuries, affecting her life prospects, following an attack in 1999 by an elephant during a visit to a temple maintained by the State.."Life" under Article 21 of the Constitution of India (right to life and personal liberty) does not mean a mere survival or living in immobile, animal existence, the High Court reiterated. ."It is the basic expectation of every human being to live a healthy and active life. If such expectation is breached due to the negligence of the State or its agencies, then it becomes an obligation of the State to do the needful for restitution of the person who has suffered due to the negligence of his servants. This is the reason why this Court exercises its equitable/inherent jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of The Constitution of Indian in appropriate cases by granting compensation and thereby come to the rescue of persons whose right to life has been impaired or affected due to the negligence of the State or its instrumentalities," Justice Krishnan Ramaswamy observed..On an examination of the case, the Court even opined that it was a fit case where the court would be justified in awarding monetary compensation of over Rs 1 crore rupees, along with compassionate employment, even if the petitioner had only sought compassionate employment.."If at all, this Court intends to render complete and comprehensive justice to the petitioner, it can be done only by providing monetary compensation as well as compassionate appointment. Any decision by this Court for providing compassionate appointment alone to the petitioner, will amount to rendering piecemeal justice. Certainly, such way of rendering justice, would not provide complete justice. Therefore, to avoid rendering justice in a piecemeal manner, in deserving cases, this Court can invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to mould the relief to do complete and comprehensive justice," the Court said..The petitioner before the Court had during suffered permanent injuries to her throat after a belligerent temple elephant attacked her during a visit to the Arulmigu Maariamman Temple when she was three years old..The woman had approached the Court seeking compassionate employment, on the ground that the State was vicariously liable for the negligence of the mahout owing to which the temple elephant had injured her. .The Court was told that the family was under severe financial stress and had faced enormous difficulties in meeting the medical needs of the petitioner for the past 20 years. Various representations made to the State for aid had yielded no positive response, it was submitted..The Court was further informed that owing to “Laryngol Pharyngeal Traumatic Injury”, as diagnosed by doctors, she required an artificial tracheal tube inserted in her throat to breathe, that she could not take solid food and that she lost her speech..The State opposed the plea for compassionate employment, but submitted that it was willing to reimburse the petitioner for medical expenses incurred to the tune of Rs 3.93 lakh on humanitarian grounds. .The State also disputed the petitioner's stance that she had suffered her injuries on account of the elephant. Rather, the State submitted that the petitioner had been injured after she fell in a garbage carrier amid public chaos that followed after the elephant's behaviour was misinterpreted by the temple crowd. .Justice Krishnaswamy, however, rejected the State's version upon finding that there was enough material, including newspaper reports of the 1999 incident, to attribute the petitioner's injuries to the elephant attack. "The reason for the incident of elephant attack was due to the sheer negligence on the part of the Mahout of the fourth respondent temple," the Court concluded.As such, the Court opined that the petitioner's fundamental rights had been violated owing to the negligence of the State authorities. .Further, the Judge observed that given the incurable nature of her injuries, the poor financial background of the petitioner's family and her scattered marital prospects, the petitioner has to manage on her own..The Court, therefore, proceeded to direct the State authorities to appoint the petitioner, a computer science graduate, to a suitable post in the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Trichy within four weeks' time, in additional to the payment of Rs 25 lakhs as compensation. ."Taking into consideration of the loss of marital prospects, sufferings that she has been undergoing from day-to-day life, the poor financial status of her father, and unpredictability of the problem that she is going to face in the future with the existing disabilities, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to employ her on compassionate ground in the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, as the same would help the petitioner to improve her financial status, marital prospects, living style, mental strength and reduce her mental agony and other sufferings to some extent," the Court said..The Judge also added a note of caution over safely housing elephants in temples. In this regard, the Court observed that the State should be very cautious when the devotees are visiting the temple with the elephant being there.."Several temples maintained by the State are keeping elephants within their premises as part of tradition and religious practices. This practice of having elephants in temples is seen from historic times... The State (fourth respondent temple) is the owner and maintaining the endangering wild animal in a place where a large number of public will assemble and therefore the State has to maintain the animal in such a way that it would not cause or create any fear among the public and in any case, if any injury sustained due to the indifferent behaviour or fear of the elephant, to any public or devotees, the State cannot absolve or wriggle out of its liabilities merely by stating that there was no elephant attack," the Court made it clear.