NITIN WALIA MINOR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the tender age of three years, Nitin Walia, appellant in the present case lost his right arm in an unfortunate incident. It has crippled him for life. It happened on 20/03/1988. This boy of three years of age was feeling excited and jubilant when he visited National Zoological Park, Delhi alongwith his family members to see various animals kept in Zoo. His joy was boundless when he reached the enclosure where the white tigress was being kept. He was with his father and other family members. All family members were keenly watching the tigress. The boy, at that age, who had never seen such an animal was exhilarated. I was wonder for him. The white tigress was kept inside iron bars. There was railing before that. Appellant reached near the railing without realising as to what was in store for him. The tigress all of a sudden grabbed his hand through the railing and pulled it in. Other family members reached to the rescue of the appellant and tried to put the tigress away. However, by that time irreversible harm had been done. Tigress had bit the right arm of the appellant. Profusely bleeding, in severe pain and agony the child was taken to the hospital situated in the Zoo but the doctors in the Zoo expressed their inability to provide any treatment for want of any medicine or facilities for that purpose. It is irony that the Zoological Park of national fame where large species of animals are kept, which include ferocious ones, there are no medical facilities to meet such eventualities. Traumatic and tensed, father of the appellant rushed the appellant to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and got the appellant admitted there. Right arm of the appellant had to be amputated upto two and a half inches from the shoulder to avoid further loss of any of the limbs or child's life. Appellant remained an indoor patient for more than one month and was discharged only on 25/04/1988. Appellant has now to spend rest of his life without vital organ of the body which impairs and affects the proper functioning of a person. He has been rendered permanently disabled. Disability is to the extent of 100%. Due to such incident he had to suffer, at very tender age, physical pain, trauma and agony. Mental pain would remain through out his life and it may be difficult for him to forget such a horrific incident.

(2.) As the appellant (or for that matter his father and guardian) considered respondent, namely. Zoo Authorities responsible for the incident in not taking proper care to confine wild animals in the Zoo, suit for damages was filed. Initially claim was made for damages to the tune of Rs. 7,10,000.00 However, claim was thereafter confined to Rs. 5 lacs and interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. Appellant/plaintiff had filed the suit as an "indigent person" and he was allowed to sue as such by the Trial Court by order dated 14/03/1991. During the pendency of the proceedings an interim compensation of Rs. 40,000.00 was granted to the appellant. On filing the requisite Court-fee this amount was allowed to be withdrawn by him.

(3.) The respondents filed the written statement and took part in the proceedings. However, they chose to remain absent after the issues were framed. Father of the appellant stepped into witness box and testified. Neither the plaintiff's witness was crossed-examined nor respondent/defendant led any evidence in defence. Arguments were heard and impugned judgment and decree dated 15/01/1996 was passed by learned Additional District Judge, Delhi. The Trial Court found that unfortunate incident stands admitted by the respondents in the written statement. However, it held that there was negligence on the part of plaintiff also who had crossed the railing and had put his hand into iron bars where the tigress had pulled out the right arm of the plaintiff. In his wisdom, therefore, he thought it proper that interim compensation of Rs. 40,000.00 which had already been awarded in this case would be adequate and no further compensation was warranted.