IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that ex gratia compensation under the notification dated 15.11.2014 is limited to incidents involving extremist or terrorist violence, and not all accidents qualify for such compensation.

JUDGMENT :

KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Bhattacharyya, learned standing counsel for the Revenue Department, representing the State respondent no. 1 and Ms. M. Barman, learned Govt. Advocate, representing State respondent nos. 2 to 6.

2. The Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Relief and Rehabilitation Department had issued a notification dated 22.09.1998, to provide ex gratia and financial assistance to the persons who were killed/ injured due to extremist violence/ terrorist violence/ acts of miscreant/ communal violence/ ethnic violence/ group-clash/ firing of security forces/ accident, etc., who were kidnapped/ abducted by the extremist/ terrorist/ miscreants and whose dwelling houses are fully burnt/ damaged whether due to acts of extremist/ terrorist/ miscreants or during communal violence/ ethnic violence/ group clash. The quantum of compensation was revised by another notification no. RR.33/2014/66 dated 15.11.2014, issued by the Addl. Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Management Department.

3. On 12.05.2021, Ajial Hoque, the father-in-law of the petitioner had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge, North Salmara Police Outpost that on 06.05.2021, at about 3.00 PM, his son Rahul Hoque along with his colleague were proceeding towards home from Garodokan on a scooter bearing registration no. AS-01-ES-6958 and they were hit by a commercial vehicle bearing registration no. AS-17C-0121 coming from opposite direction in NH-31 at Khargapur and as a result, his son had died on the spot. The dead body was taken to Bongaigaon Civil Hospital, where post-mortem examination was conducted. Accordingly, Abhayapuri P.S. Case No. 430/2021 under sections 279, 304-A, 338, 427 IPC was registered.

4. After obtaining the death certificate and Next of Kin certificate, the petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased, had submitted a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon (now District Commissioner, Bongaigaon). As the petitioner has not been paid the ex gratia amount, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. In support of his submissions in favour of entitlement to ex gratia, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the following cases:

(i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender and Others, (2020) 11 SCC 356

(ii) Sube Singh v. State of Haryana and Others, (2006) 3 SCC 178

(iii) Lakshi Das and Others v. Gyanendra Dev Tripathi and Others, 2023 (2) GLT 850

(iv) Gunalata Das and Others v. State of Assam and Others, W.P. (C) No. 2100/2019 and connected cases, decided by this Court by a common order dated 04.05.2019

(v) Sujit Nandi and Others v. State of Assam and Others, W.P. (C) No. 8815/2019 and other connected cases decided by this Court by a common order dated 11.02.2021

6. It may be mentioned that in the case of Lakshi Das and Others (supra), Gunalata Das and Others (supra) and Sujit Nandi and Others, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court had held the petitioners to be entitled to ex gratia on the basis of notification dated 15.11.2014 notwithstanding that the deceased had died in motor vehicle accident.

7. The case of Sube Singh (supra) has no application in this case, because by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court of India had granted compensation as the petitioner had established that he had suffered custodial torture.

8. Now we proceed to examine the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). In the said case, the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma, (2016) 9 SCC 627 : (2020) 0 Supreme (SC) 745, has been referred to. Para-15 and 17 of the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), is quoted below:

“15. The next issue is about the deduction of the amount receivable by the legal representatives of the deceased under the 2006 Rules from the compensation amount d