[ad_1]
During the hearing, the consumer forum also rejected arguments about its jurisdiction over dog bite cases, citing court orders that people living within an area are “consumers” of the civic authority as they pay municipal taxes and fees.
On Tuesday, the forum said the pet owner violated the rules by keeping a breed of dog – the dogo argentino, originally bred as a hunting dog in the 1920s – “banned” by a government order.
The consumer forum allows the corporation to collect fines from dog owners if it so wishes. “The owner of the dog has violated the law of the land and the rules made thereunder for keeping a prohibited breed of dog i.e. Dogo Argentino as a pet, therefore, MCG is at liberty to recover Rs 2 lakh from the owner of the dog, if so desired by the MCG,” the district consumer forum said. President Sandeep Jindal’s order said.
The court was passing judgment on Munni’s complaint on August 11 when the two-year-old dog – which was not on a leash – attacked her on her way to work in Civil Lines. He had multiple injuries including bite wounds on his head.
“He fell on the ground and with great effort, was rescued by passers-by and taken to hospital. From there he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital in Delhi,” the court noted.
Munni’s lawyer Sandeep Saini argued in court that the pet’s owner, a resident of Civil Lines, Gurugram, had not registered the 2-year-old dog at the MCG. “Questioned dog breeds were banned by the Indian government… this is also a case of illegal trade,” said Saini.
Both the MCG and the dog owner’s counsel challenged the locus standi of petitioner Munni and the “jurisdiction” of the consumer forum in the case.
In this regard, the forum said it found “merit” in the petitioner’s counsel that “all persons residing within the municipal limits of the Municipal Corporation of Gurugram are expressly or impliedly customers of MCG as they are paying municipal, state and central government taxes, fees and levies etc.”
instructions
The forum also issued clear directions to the MCG regarding pets and stray dogs, asking it to formulate appropriate rules as per its mandate and the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act.
Some of these are: mandatory registration of all pet dogs, mandatory for owners to ensure that their pet dogs wear a collar with a metal token and metal chain, use of a muzzle when taking the dog outside, and carrying a plucker to clean up after the dog defecating in public places.
Another said: “MCG has mandated that a family only keep one dog”.
Violation of the rules will attract a fine of at least Rs 20,000 to Rs 2 lakh, the forum said.
On stray dogs, the forum said the MCG should “immediately” take “custody” of all stray dogs. They should be “housed in a place maintained by the civic body… properly cared for… properly vaccinated and sterilized as per rules”.
Also, the order said, the MCG has to make appropriate rules to provide compensation in dog bite cases.
When asked, MCG officials said their legal team would go through the order and take appropriate action later.
People for Animals Trustee Gauri Moulekhi said the order was not in accordance with the law of the land and had far-reaching implications for all pet and street dogs.
“Instead of dealing with a specific case or incident, the forum has issued a directive that applies to the entire dog population, which is not within their jurisdiction or their mandate. This can cause large-scale damage to peaceful coexistence,” he added. That order shall be challenged in an appropriate forum.
Further, the forum talks about a 2016 notification of the central government and “information available in this connection on the Internet”, asking the MCG to cancel licenses granted to 11 “prohibited” varieties in India.
It went on to cite the example of Ghaziabad, which last month banned residents from keeping three breeds — pitbulls, rottweilers and dogo argentinos — as pets.
[ad_2]
Source link