Liabilty of the owner for snake bite

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 29 October 2011 This query is : Resolved
My friends institution watchman was bitten by a cobra and he died on the spot while on duty.
His family members and public heard this and about 400 people gathered before the institution, they did not bury the body but demand Rs.5,00,000/- (five lakh) as the compensation amount for the death.otherwise they take a legal action.
what is the liabilty of my friend in this? What kind of legal action lie against him? Any advice for my friend?

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Isaac Gabriel (Expert) 29 October 2011
It is an accident and death on duty.This will attract W.C act.

Somnath mukherjee (Expert) 29 October 2011
the above advice is right

ajay sethi (Expert) 29 October 2011
death arose in course of performance of duties .

please see an identical case wherein death was due to snake bite and it was recommended that he be granted pension

ajay sethi (Expert) 29 October 2011
delhicourts.nic.in/aug/5983.htmCached

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

SUBJECT: SERVICE MATTER: PENSION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 5983/2002

Date of decision : 27th August, 2004

Smt.Sudesh Devi ... Petitioner

Through Mr.A.K. Trivedi, Advocate

VERSUS

Union of India & others ... Respondents

Through Ms.Raman Oberoi, Advocate

DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J :

1. This writ petition was initially filed seeking inter alia issuance of directions to the respondents to grant extraordinary pension, payment of Rs.5.00 lacs as ex-gratia payment and Rs.4.00 lacs from Seema Prahari Beema Yojna.

2. During the pendency of the writ petition, however, the respondents issued a direction that extraordinary pension be paid to the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition now survives only for the purpose of consideration of as to whether or not a direction should be given to the respondents to grant ex gratia payment of Rs.5.00 lacs and another sum of Rs.4.00 lacs from Seema Prahari Beema Yojna

3. The petitioner is the widow of late Constable Ajay Kumar, who was serving in the Border Security Force and died in harness on 14.9.2000 due to cardio respiratory failure following the disease Cerebro Vascular Accident. Upon his death, normal family pension and other pensionary benefits as admissible in case of normal death were released in favour of the petitioner and the said fact was intimated by the respondents by the letter dated 15.1.2002. It was further intimated by the said letter that since Cerebro Vascular Accident is not included in Extraordinary Pension Rules, therefore, extraordinary pension in respect of the husband of the petitioner cannot be paid. Accordingly, the present petition was filed in this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

4. Notice was served on the respondents, after which a counter affidavit was filed in this Court. It appears that the husband of the petitioner, while posted in Manipur, developed fever and headache and was treated by the Nursing Assistant and thereafter he was shifted to the mini M I Room established in the field area. Since the condition of the petitioner did not improve despite the treatment given to him, he was shifted to the District Hospital Churachandpur (Manipur) where he finally breathed his last on 14.9.2000. The husband of the petitioner was examined by various doctors including Senior Medical Officer and was also examined for Malaria by Plasmodium Falciferum test and jaundice. Both the aforesaid tests were found negative. A Court of Inquiry was held which concluded that the death of the husband of the petitioner was caused by the respiratory failure following Cerebro Vascular Accident. It was, however, concluded by the respondents that death of the husband of the petitioner was a case of natural death and accordingly they decided that it is not a case where extraordinary family pension could be paid to the petitioner nor she could be paid the ex gratia payment and the insurance amount of Rs.4.00 lacs from Seema Prahari Beema Yojna.

5. However, during the pendency of the present petition in this Court, the respondents considered the entire matter afresh and on such scrutiny, it was held that the husband of the petitioner died due to cause attributable to government service. It was also held that the said disease was contracted due to service conditions and is, therefore, covered under Extraordinary Pension Rules. It was thereafter decided that the petitioner should be paid extraordinary pension as her husband had died for the cause which was attributable to government service condition.

6. Consequently, after intimation of the aforesaid decision of the government that extraordinary pension shall be paid to the petitioner, the writ petition now survives only to the extent of prayer (c), which is the prayer for release of grant of ex gratia payment and insurance under Seema Prahari Beema Yojna.

7. It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the case of the husband of the petitioner falls within the four corners of the provisions entitling payment of ex gratia amount and the insurance amount. It was submitted that even the Commandant made a reference to the Inspector General, Border Security Force recommending payment of ex gratia Rs.5.00 lacs from Central Government and Rs.4.00 lacs from Seema Prahari Beema Yojna. He also drew our attention to the expression 'accident', which is defined under the Extraordinary Pension Rules and also to the schedule annexed to the said Rules. In support of his contention that since the death of the husband of the petitioner was an accident, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be paid the ex gratia payment from the Central Government as also the insurance amount from the Insurance Company.

8. Counsel for the respondents, however, refuted the aforesaid contentions by referring to the same provisions, which are relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner and on the basis thereof, it was submitted that since the husband of the petitioner died a natural death, therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to payment of Rs.4.00 lacs from the Seema Prahari Beema Yojna. Records were produced by the counsel for the respondents to support of her contention that the case for grant of amount under Seema Prahari Beema Yojna was also duly considered by the respondents and that the same was rejected under letter dated 12.2.2001 as it was a case of natural death. As regards ex gratia payment of Rs.5.00 lacs from Central Government is concerned, it was submitted that the case was referred to the Ministry of Home Affairs but the same was not agreed to since cause of the death of the husband of the petitioner was not covered under the extant rules.

9. In view of the aforesaid provision, we are required to consider the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties. The expression `accident' is defined under Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, which provides as follows:

"3. For the purpose of these rules unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context-

(1) "accident" means -

(i)a sudden and unavoidable mishap; or

(ii)a mishap due to an act of devotion to duty in an emergency arising otherwise than by violence but out of and in the course of service;"

10. Rule 4 thereof provides that no award shall be made under these rules except with the sanction of the President.

11. It is apparent from the records that various authorities of the Border Security Force recommended the case of the petitioner both for payment of extraordinary pension benefits and ex gratia payment. Such recommendations of the Deputy Inspector General of BSF as also of the Inspector General of BSF have been placed on record. They had strongly recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of extraordinary pension, ex gratia and other financial benefits. The aforesaid recommendations were considered at the appropriate level. While the recommendation for payment of extraordinary pension was accepted but the government rejected the recommendation for the purpose of payment of ex gratia and insurance amount on the ground that the same is not payable as the husband of the petitioner died a natural death.

12. The conditions under which ex gratia lump sum compensation is to be made by the Central Government, are laid down under the Government of India, Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare, Office Memorandum No.45/55/97-P & PW(C) dated 11.9.1998. The aforesaid Office Memorandum sets out the liberalised scheme for payment of ex gratia lumpsum compensation to families of Central Government Civilian Employees who die in harness. In paragraph 5 of the said memorandum, it was stated that in supersession of all earlier orders issued by Government as well as by individual Ministries and departments in so far as these relate to the payment of an ex gratia lumpsum compensation in certain specified circumstances, the President was pleased to decide that families of Central Government Civilian employees, who die in harness in the performance of their bona fide duties under various circumstances, shall be paid the following ex gratia lumpsum compensation:-

(a) Death occurring due to accidents in the course of performance of duties. : Rs.5.00 lakhs

(b) Death occurring in the course of performance of duties attributable to acts of violence by terrorists, anti-social elements, etc. : Rs.5.00 lakhs

(c) Death occurring during (a) enemy action in international war or border skirmishes and (b) action against militants, terrorists, extremists, etc. : Rs.7.50 lakhs

13. Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of his arguments, stated that the case of the husband of the petitioner falls under category (a) as the death of the husband of the petitioner was due to the accident in the course of performance of duty and in support thereof reliance has been placed on the definition of 'accident' as referred to herein above.

14. We have considered the aforesaid provision in the light of the submissions of the counsel for the parties. There can be no doubt to the fact that the petitioner died in harness while performing his duties in the field area of Manipur. Therefore, the only issue that now arises for consideration is whether the husband of the petitioner died due to accident. In appendix to the aforesaid guidelines, illustrative examples of cases covered under clause (a) have been set out in the following manner:-

"Clause (a): Death Attributable to accidents while on duty.

1. Death, as a result of an accident while travelling in a public, private or official vehicle or otherwise of a Group 'D' employee, Despatch Rider, Messenger, Postman, Notice Server, etc., deputed to distribute dak, notices, etc., or of personnel on filed duties.

2. Death, occurring due to an accident while travelling on bona fide official duties in a service aircraft.

3. Accidents during test flights of aircraft and non-scheduled flights of chartered aircraft resulting in death of employees travelling on duty in the public interest in such flights.

4. Death, in train accidents, of personnel undertaking official journeys on duty.

5. Accidents to ships, river steamers, etc., resulting in death of Government servants undertaking journeys on duty by these modes of travel.

6. Death, as a result of accidents, of personnel of Income Tax and Customs & Central Excise Departments, Central Police Organizations, etc., while proceeding on raids against tax evaders, anti-social elements, etc.

7. Death, due to contact with live electric/power lines of personnel deployed on flood/cyclon relief activities.

8. Death, due to electrocution, of departmental employees engaged in rectification of defects in generation and distribution of electricity.

9. Accidents while engaged in rectification of defects in machinery and equipment.

10. Death, due to accidental explosion of boilers, storage tanks of inflammable materials, chemicals, etc.

11. Death due to fire accidents while on duty.

12. Death of Fire Fighting Staff engaged in fire-fighting operations."

15. The case of the husband of the petitioner, who died of Cerebro Vascular Accident, is not included in any of the aforesaid illustrative examples given in the appendix.

16. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that they are only illustrative cases and, therefore, cases like the case of the petitioner is although not included in the said illustrative cases but since it comes within the definition of 'accident', therefore, this Court should hold that the aforesaid conditions of clause (a) stand satisfied in the present case.

17. For the aforesaid purpose we have looked into the definition of 'accident' as given in the Extraordinary Pension Rules. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid definition of 'accident' shall have to be read in the context of the illustrative cases which were set out therein. Since the husband of the petitioner died a natural death on account of Cerebro Vascular Accident, his case cannot be said to be an accident but death occurred in the natural course and, therefore, in our considered opinion, the petitioner would not be entitled to payment of the aforesaid ex gratia payment and to that extent the decision of the Government of India is upheld.

18. Therefore, the next issue, which arises for our consideration, is whether the petitioner would be entitled for payment of the insurance amount of Rs.4.00 lacs from Seema Prahari Beema Yojna. The counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, placed for perusal the terms and conditions of the aforesaid scheme. Under the aforesaid scheme, a person is insured for an amount of Rs.4.00 lacs in case of death in action / encounter with extremists / militants and accidental deaths such as while travelling by any mode of conveyance or while flying in a passenger air craft, death due to drowning, snake bite and lightening etc. Clause 7 thereof provides the cases of coverage and exception thereof in the following manner:

"7. COVERAGE

The Insurance policy given under these rules shall cover the insured person against death and disability caused directly or indirectly by any accident (during the applicability of the Scheme) by external violent and visible means subject to the following exclusions:

a) Intentionally self-injury, suicide or any attempt threat.

b) While under the influence of liquor or drug.

c) Natural death."

19. On a careful perusal of the aforesaid para, we are satisfied that since the petitioner died in natural course and, therefore, has a natural death and, therefore, his death was excluded from the coverage of the insurance scheme. We, therefore, hold that the petitioner is not entitled to payment of the aforesaid insurance amount also.

20.The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations that no such ex gratia payment and insurance amount is payable to the petitioner. So far as the issue of payment of extraordinary family pension is concerned, the said prayer is rendered infructuous.

(DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

JUDGE

(GITA MITTAL)

JUDGE

27th August, 2004

ajay sethi (Expert) 29 October 2011
Death of a workman due to snake bite while on duty will amount to 'accident'.
Taj Khan Hnusa v. Patel Prevbha Neemuch, (1999) 81 FLR 607: (1999) III LL) (Supp) 1246: 1999 LLR 63 (MP HC

Advocate M.Bhadra (Expert) 29 October 2011
While performing the duties as watchman,he is an employee of owner of the Institution,it does not arise any criminal cases,but heirs of the deceased can claim compensation.