STATE OF HARYANA Vs. PARMANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been brought by defendants against the judgment of lower appellate court dated 31. 1. 2002, who had modified the decree of trial court and awarded Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation for the death of Mohan Lal, along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of decree of the trial court till the date of realization.

(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. 8. 1989, while he was going to his school along with 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 later on 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, 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 leopard. 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: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_966_ACJ_2009Html1.htm</FRM>