The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed the United India Insurance Company to pay ₹5 lakh to the family of a spectator, a retired teacher, who was gored to death by a bull during a jallikattu event in Karur district.

The court was hearing the petition filed by K. Mathuram of Karur district. The petitioner’s husband was a spectator at the jallikattu held at Rachandar Thirumalai.

The event was covered by an insurance policy issued by the insurance company. In the event of death or 100% permanent disability, the sum assured was ₹5 lakh.

Even though the petitioner’s husband died and the incident was reported to the jurisdictional police, resulting in the registration of a case, the claimed amount had not yet been disbursed.

The counsel representing the insurance company said the amount had not been paid due to two objections. As per the FIR, the petitioner’s husband was standing near the collection point. A spectator must remain within the enclosure designated for spectators and should not stand near the collection point.

The FIR does not mention the name of the owner of the bull that gored the petitioner’s husband. Therefore, if the death had occurred due to a bull participating in the jallikattu, the policy could be invoked. In the absence of such information, the amount had not been released to the petitioner, it was submitted.

First objection

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy said the incident, as reported in the FIR, was covered by the policy. The first objection raised is that the petitioner’s husband was standing near the collection point. It was mentioned in the FIR. However, the FIR does not state that the petitioner’s husband had strayed into the path of the bulls. It is common knowledge that the spectators’ enclosure starts near the vadivasal and extends up to the collection point.

The court said the FIR only mentioned that the petitioner’s husband was standing near the collection point. It cannot be inferred that he had entered the enclosure and was standing in the way of the bulls near the collection point. Therefore, the first objection stands overruled.

The second objection is that the owner of the bull is not mentioned, although it would have been more appropriate for the police to include the bull owner’s name in the FIR. The FIR, as well as all other documents, make it clear that the petitioner’s husband died as a result of being gored by one of the bulls that participated in the jallikattu. The objection is merely hyper-technical, the court said.

The judge said the policy is taken by paying a premium precisely to cover such unfortunate events. Accordingly, the court did not find the reasons argued by the counsel appearing for the insurance company acceptable. Since, the chief organiser of the jallikattu event did not respond or appear before the court, despite the name being printed in the notice, the court directed the Karur Collector not to permit him to act as chief organiser or hold any office-bearer position for conducting any jallikattu henceforth.