A consumer court in Gautam Budh Nagar has ordered a Noida residential association to pay Rs 1.05 lakh in compensation and litigation costs to a resident after a pack of stray dogs injured his four-year-old daughter, ruling that housing societies are legally responsible for resident safety under consumer protection law.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission found the Resident Welfare Association (RWA) of Kendriya Vihar-II in Noida guilty of service deficiency. The bench, comprising President Anil Kumar Pundir and member Anju Sharma, ordered the housing body to pay Rs 100,000 for the physical injuries, health risks, and mental trauma caused to the child, along with Rs 5,000 in legal expenses within 30 days.
Details Of The Incident
The attack occurred in a park situated behind the housing complex’s RWA office, where the child sustained category-III bite wounds across her back. A passerby intervened to rescue the girl, who was subsequently taken to a medical facility to receive anti-rabies injections. According to the complaint, the incident left the child severely traumatized and afraid to leave her home.
The child’s father stated that the attack was not an isolated event, noting that residents had repeatedly warned management about the risks stray dog packs posed to children and elderly residents. The complaint alleged that the RWA ignored multiple formal grievances and safety recommendations submitted by residents and board members prior to the attack.
Housing Body Defense
In its submission to the commission, the RWA argued that managing stray animals falls under the jurisdiction of local municipal authorities and state government departments rather than residential committees. The association contended that legal protections for stray animals prevent management committees from removing dogs from society premises.
The RWA further stated that it had addressed the issue by issuing safety advisories to residents through physical notice boards, its official website, and a community mobile application.
Legal Basis For Liability
The commission rejected the defense, establishing that residents qualify as consumers under the Consumer Protection Act because they pay monthly maintenance fees. The tribunal ruled that collecting maintenance charges creates a binding obligation for the RWA to ensure internal security, maintain a safe living environment, and address physical hazards within society grounds.
By failing to mitigate the known danger posed by aggressive animals, the commission concluded that the association failed to deliver adequate maintenance and security services, making it financially liable for the resulting harm.
