ANAMALAI TIMBER TRUST LTD Vs. TRIPPUNITHURA DEVASWOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant. The original plaintiff was the Government of Cochin represented by the Secretary to Government. The subject matter of the suit related to the Cochin Devaswom which was at the time of the institution of the suit under the control of the Government of Cochin. It is now being managed by the Cochin Devaswom Board. So the plaintiff is now represented by the Secretary of the Devaswom Board, Cochin. The defendant is the Anamalai Timber Trust Ltd., represented by the managing director.

(2.) The Tripunithura Devaswom owned an elephant by name Narayanan Kutty which was leased out by the Government to the defendant company for one year with effect from 15.5.1117. The defendant company had executed an agreement Ext. E dated 10.6.1117 by which the services of the elephant and its two mahouts were taken over by the defendant company. After the period of one year, the term was extended for another year, as agreed to by the parties, under the original conditions except as regards the annual rental which was raised to Rs. 350/-. The elephant had two mahouts and they, along with the elephant, were lent to the defendant company under the agreement mentioned above.

(3.) The elephant was to be used for dragging logs of timber measuring not more than three Candies. The logs to be dragged by the elephant were to be selected by the servants of the defendant company under instructions from the responsible officers of the company. Contrary to the undertaking, the elephant was used to drag oversized logs. On the morning of the 20th of Meenom 1118, the elephant had already dragged three logs of timber beyond the stipulated measurements. An oversized fourth log was also attempted to be got dragged by the elephant. The animal showed its disinclination to drag the heavy log and consequently, the mahouts belaboured the animal for a good length of time in the yard lying adjacent to the office and the sawing mill of the company in the presence of some of the servants of the company. During the course of such causing of hurt, the animal, out of pain, trumpeted aloud several times which attracted a number of persons in the neighbourhood. None of the officers of the defendant company prevented the infliction of such great violence to the elephant and they were grossly negligent in not preventing such hurt being caused to it. The mahouts were grossly negligent in inflicting such severe injuries. Subsequently, the animal died because of those injuries.