Case Note & Summary
The present appeal before the Supreme Court arose from the tragic death of Vijay Kumar, who was struck by a stray bull on 21st September 2007 while walking on a road. He sustained severe head injury and remained unconscious, and the incident was reported to the police via a DDR entry. During his lifetime, Vijay Kumar pursued a claim with the authorities, but it yielded no result. After his death, his widow, Nisha, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh seeking adequate compensation. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 27th May 2019 in CWP No. 17331 of 2010, assessed and awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 29,32,000 with 6% interest per annum from 1st September 2012, applying the principles used under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, based on the income of the deceased, age, and other relevant factors. Aggrieved, the respondents filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 1926 of 2019), and the Division Bench of the High Court, vide its judgment dated 12th November 2025, set aside the Single Judge’s order. The Division Bench held that the case involved 'disputed questions of fact' which could not be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the writ petition itself was not maintainable, granting liberty to the claimants to seek remedy before the civil court. Nisha then approached the Supreme Court. The appellant contended that the incident dated back to 2007 and it would be extremely unjust, unfair, and inequitable to ask the claimant to pursue remedies before the civil court at this late stage, especially when no disputed questions of fact actually arose. The respondents argued that none of the facts required to establish liability on the Municipal Council had been proved and that the principles enunciated under the Motor Vehicles Act were impermissible to be applied for determining compensation. The Supreme Court, after hearing counsel, observed that although the reasoning of the Division Bench appeared appealing at first blush, a closer examination of the facts led to a contrary conclusion, implying that the writ petition was maintainable and that the Single Judge’s approach was not incorrect. The final decision and the ratio on maintainability and compensation methodology were indicated in favor of the appellant, though the full text of the judgment beyond paragraph 6 was not available in the extract.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Disputed Questions of Fact - Article 226, Constitution of India - The Division Bench set aside the compensation awarded by the Single Judge on the sole ground that the case involved disputed questions of fact not adjudicable in writ jurisdiction, directing the claimants to approach the civil court. The Supreme Court, upon closer examination of facts, observed that the reasoning of the Division Bench was not tenable and that writ courts may grant relief in such cases where the factual matrix is clear. (Paras 2, 6) B) Compensation Law - Tort - Stray Animal Accident - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Single Judge assessed compensation by applying principles governing the grant of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The respondents challenged this approach; however, the Supreme Court did not express a view on its applicability. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court Division Bench erred in setting aside the compensation awarded by the Single Judge on the ground that disputed questions of fact could not be adjudicated under Article 226, and whether the claimants should be relegated to a civil suit.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 not absolutely barred by disputed questions of fact
- compensation for non-motor accident cases
- applicability of Motor Vehicles Act principles not decided
