MADHAVAN Vs. RAJA RAJA VARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE kinds of cases are rare. Appellants before us are the mahouts of an elephant by name Sectharaman. The animal belongs to Cochin devaswom Board. On 29-5-1986, at about 7-30 a. m. , the wife of the first plaintiff late Rajeswari Thampuran, the mother of the other plaintiffs who was a devotee of Sri Poornathrayeesa Temple, Tripunithura, went to the temple to offer prayers. She entered the temple from the western gopuram of the temple. While returning from the temple, she saw the elephant standing on the northern side of the Dcepasthambam. She asked defendants 2 and 3 - appellants before us- whether she could proceed further. The mahouts made affirmative gesture and so she moved. The elephant suddenly approached her violently, knocked down and thrust its tusk in her body on the right side of her abdomen. It caused fatal and severe injuries on her. She was taken to the hospital where she succumbed to the injury.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the elephant belongs to the first defendant Devaswom and c'cl jndants 2 and 3 are the mahouts. The mahouts are keeping the elephant and they are the immediate keepers of the animal-elephant- while Devaswom the owner of the elephant is the mediate keeper of the animal.

(3.) AS regards the question of general liability, the english Law is well settled. The English Law has been adopted and applied by the High Court of Madras as well as by the High Court of Travancore. In 1lr 35 Mad. 708 (Vedapiiratti v. Koppan Nair), a Division Bench of the Madras High Court considered the extent of liability for damages done by an elephant. In this decision, the court found Hit the elephant belongs to that class of animals included in ferae nature (dangerous class of animals ). It is staled in the judgment that it can be laid down as a rule of law that in India elephant belongs to a dangerous class of animals.