The State government is deemed the owner and custodian of wild animals and must compensate victims of wild animal attacks in accordance with the magnitude of the loss suffered, the Kerala High court has held.

Justice C.P. Mohammed Nias dismissed the appeal filed by the Wildlife Warden, Kurichiyadu Range, Sulthan Bathery, and other Forest authorities challenging the award of ₹2 lakh as compensation to the family of a person who had died after an elephant attack. The court upheld the findings by the Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery, and the District Court, Wayanad, granting ₹1,78,000 to the victim’s family and holding the Forest authorities responsible for the death of the victim.

The Forest department contended before the High Court that the sub court and the district court ignored the Kerala Rules for Payment of Compensation to Victims of Attack by Wild Animals, 1980, under which the compensation was set at ₹20,000. The High Court held that the Rules were formulated as an ex gratia scheme, and that it could not be taken as the sole remedy available to a citizen who suffers loss of life or injury from wild animal attacks.

The family of Scaria, the victim, had contended before the sub court that his death, while walking on a panchayat road, was caused by the negligence and carelessness of Forest officials. They claimed that after filing several petitions, the department had given ₹20,000 as compensation. The family had issued a legal notice demanding ₹2 lakh, and the compensation claim before the trial court was limited to ₹1.80 lakh.

The Forest department had argued that the deceased was intoxicated at that time, and that his death was due to his own negligence. The department claimed that it had taken sufficient precautionary measures to prevent wild animals from entering private properties.

The sub court had found that the incident occurred on a panchayat road, and that the authorities had not installed power fencing lines and trenches along the forest boundary to prevent wild animals from leaving forest land and entering private properties. The district court had affirmed this decision as well.