Noida: The district consumer commission has ordered the RWA of Kendriya Vihar-II in Sector 82 to pay Rs 1 lakh in compensation to a resident, holding it responsible for failing to tackle stray dog menace that led to a four-year-old girl being mauled inside the housing society.Calling it a “deficiency in service”, the commission ruled that an RWA collecting maintenance and security charges cannot evade its responsibility to ensure residents’ safety within the residential premises.Allowing the complaint on July 10, the bench of president Anil Kumar Pundir and member Anju Sharma asked the RWA, through its president, to pay the amount towards the mental agony, harassment, risk and injuries suffered by the child, besides Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs. The amount must be paid within 30 days, failing which it will attract 6% annual simple interest until payment.A separate complaint against Noida Authority over stray dogs was dismissed.The complaint was filed by resident Ashish Kumar Aggarwal, who alleged that his daughter, Shayra (4), was attacked by a pack of stray dogs in the green park behind the RWA office around 9.20pm on June 29, 2022. She suffered a category-III bite on her back and was rescued by a passerby.Aggarwal told the commission that the attack was not an isolated incident. Residents had repeatedly alerted the RWA about growing stray dog menace, with several people having been bitten earlier as well. He argued that, having paid maintenance and security charges since 2005, he qualified as a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act and was entitled to safe maintenance services.Rejecting the RWA’s defence, the commission ruled that collecting maintenance charges created a clear service obligation. “The RWA has failed to discharge its obligation to provide safe and adequate maintenance and security services to the residents, which amounts to deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act,” it observed.Noida Authority argued that managing stray dogs inside the society was the RWA’s responsibility as it collected maintenance charges. The RWA, meanwhile, contended that stray dogs are protected under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Animal Birth Control Rules, and that it had only issued advisories to residents while requesting the authority to act.The commission, however, held that while civic authorities have a broader statutory role in stray dog management, the primary responsibility for ensuring safety within a gated residential complex rests with the RWA that provides maintenance services.The order comes amid a debate over stray dog management. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that authorities and resident bodies must strike a balance between animal welfare and public safety, making it clear that while stray dogs cannot be relocated or harmed arbitrarily, civic bodies and RWAs cannot ignore repeated attacks or abdicate their duty to protect residents.
