Stray-dog death compensation claims must be decided by a reasoned order after hearing.

The petitioner, Jan Bai, claimed compensation following the death of her husband, Bhagwat Prasad Yadav, who was allegedly bitten by a stray dog on or about 14.05.2019 and subsequently died on 14.07.2019 at the Community Health Centre, Pali.

The post-mortem report attributed the death to cardio-respiratory failure caused by rabies following an animal bite.

The petitioner contended that her husband had left behind two minor children and that she had submitted a representation dated 14.07.2020 to the District Forest Officer, Bilaspur, seeking compensation, but no decision had been taken on it.

The State opposed the claim, contending that the deceased had failed to obtain timely anti-rabies treatment, that no statutory liability of the State had been established, and that the case was distinguishable from Sobha Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh.

The petitioner therefore invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court seeking compensation or appropriate directions.

Whether the petitioner’s pending representation claiming compensation for her husband’s death allegedly caused by a stray dog bite was required to be considered and decided by the competent authority.

Whether the petitioner was substantively entitled to compensation under the applicable rules, circulars, or law, particularly in view of the alleged delay in obtaining medical treatment and the disputed statutory liability of the State.

The Court considered the Chhattisgarh State Government circular dated 09.06.2015 and Rule 29 of the applicable Rules, 1999, relied upon by the petitioner regarding responsibility for control of dogs.

It also considered the parties’ reliance on the Revenue Book Circular, Sobha Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh, Anupam Tripathi v. Union of India, (2016) 13 SCC 492, and Corporation of Calicut v. Veluthedath Bindu.

The governing procedural principle applied by the Court was that a pending compensation claim involving disputed facts and questions of statutory liability must be examined by the competent authority through a reasoned and speaking order, after considering the relevant material and affording an effective opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.

The Court did not adjudicate the petitioner’s entitlement to compensation.

It found that the petitioner’s claim involved disputed questions concerning the cause of death, the delay in obtaining medical treatment, the effect of the alleged failure to receive anti-rabies vaccination, and the existence of any statutory liability on the part of the State authorities.

These matters required factual and legal consideration by the competent authority rather than determination in the writ petition at that stage.

Accordingly, the Court directed the District Forest Officer to consider the representation, the relevant documents, and the objections raised by the respondents, while granting hearing to all concerned parties.

The Court preserved the petitioner’s right to submit a fresh representation and required that such representation also be decided in accordance with law.

The District Forest Officer, Bilaspur, was directed to decide the petitioner’s pending representation dated 14.07.2020, if still pending, by a reasoned and speaking order after hearing all concerned parties and considering the relevant documents and objections, preferably within six weeks of receiving the Court’s order.

If the petitioner filed a fresh representation, it was to be decided by the competent authority within 45 days of filing, after providing an effective opportunity of hearing and in accordance with the applicable rules, circulars, and law.