The Delhi High Court on Monday issued notice to the city police, the city zoo and the Central Zoo Authority on a plea filed by the widow of a man who was mauled to death by a tiger at the zoo.
The widow has sought Rs 50 lakh as compensation for ‘security lapses’ on part of the authorities, after her 20-year-old husband was mauled to death by a white tiger at Delhi’s National Zoological Park on 24 Septembper.
The man, Maqsood from Anand Parbat area in central Delhi, apparently crossed the stand-off barrier and jumped into the enclosure.
Justice Vibhu Bakhru asked the zoo authorities, police and city government to file their replies by 18 December.
Maqsood’s widow Fatima said the government was liable to pay compensation to the family as there was negligence on the part of the authorities due to which her husband, the only earning member in his family, died.
The plea said Maqsood lost his life because the authorities, upon whom rested the responsibility to provide security at the zoo, failed to discharge their duties. It further argued that the authorities had no emergency or contingency plans to rescue people from such untoward incidents. Days after the incident happened, the zoo authorities also decided to review its security arrangements to prevent any such attack in future.
The widow has sought Rs 50 lakh as compensation for ‘security lapses’ on part of the authorities, after her 20-year-old husband was mauled to death by a white tiger at Delhi’s National Zoological Park on 24 Septembper.
The man, Maqsood from Anand Parbat area in central Delhi, apparently crossed the stand-off barrier and jumped into the enclosure.
Justice Vibhu Bakhru asked the zoo authorities, police and city government to file their replies by 18 December.
Maqsood’s widow Fatima said the government was liable to pay compensation to the family as there was negligence on the part of the authorities due to which her husband, the only earning member in his family, died.
The plea said Maqsood lost his life because the authorities, upon whom rested the responsibility to provide security at the zoo, failed to discharge their duties. It further argued that the authorities had no emergency or contingency plans to rescue people from such untoward incidents. Days after the incident happened, the zoo authorities also decided to review its security arrangements to prevent any such attack in future.