The Bombay High Court has recently quashed the Assistant Conservator of Forest order that awarded only Rs 10,000 to a woman who survived a tiger attack and dismissed the wounds as ‘simple injuries.’
A division bench of Justice Rohit Deo and Justice Vrushali Joshi set aside the order of the Assistant Conservator of Forest.
“We are shocked with the decision taken by the Assistant Conservator of Forrest considering the injuries sustained in Tiger attack as simple injuries and calculating the amount of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation when the Government has honoured her by giving Bravery Certificate,” the bench remarked.
On January 24, 2017, Kavita Kokode, a farmer in Maharashtra’s Chandrapur District, went to collect Tur seeds when she was attacked and seriously injured by a fully grown tiger. She was assisted by other laborers and spent four days in the hospital.
Kokode claimed that the tiger attack left her mentally disturbed and unable to perform any professional or household work. Her right hand is severely damaged, and she is unable to complete any tasks.
However, after filing an application with the forest department, she was only awarded Rs 10,000 in compensation. Her injuries were classified as minor. She challenged the amount of compensation in the High Court. Her counsel argued that it was the forest department’s responsibility to protect the lives of innocent people living in nearby villages and to compensate those who were injured. Furthermore, the petitioner received a Bravery Certificate from the government for battling the fully grown Tiger.
In response, the State Government stated that the Assistant Conservator of Forest determined the woman suffered minor injuries and that she was given Rs. 4,000 at the time of treatment and another Rs. 6,000 later.
“Considering the trauma received by her without considering the nature of injury whether simple or grievous, the respondents should have to consider the attack by the wild animal that too the Tiger, she is entitled to receive Rs.1,00,000/- as per the Government Resolution,” the bench stated.
