SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 327

THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J
Munjuwara Khatun W/o Late Samial Basir Zaman - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And 5 Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) 7306/2023
Decided On : 12-02-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: MR. M R KHANDAKAR
For the Respondent: GA, ASSAM, SC, FINANCE,SC, REVENUE

IMPORTANT POINT
Ex-gratia compensation under specific notifications is limited to cases of extremist violence or hit-and-run accidents, not applicable when compensation has been awarded through the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Headnote:

(A) Notifications dated 24.04.2007 and 15.11.2014 - Ex-gratia compensation for accidental deaths - The petitioner sought compensation for her husband's death in a vehicular accident, claiming entitlement under the Notifications - The court found that the Notifications provide compensation primarily for deaths related to extremist violence or hit-and-run cases, not for identified vehicular accidents. (Paras 6 , 9 , 12 )

(B) Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - The court noted that the petitioner had already received compensation through the Tribunal, which precludes further claims under the ex-gratia scheme - The court emphasized that statutory remedies must be pursued for identified vehicular accidents. (Paras 10 , 12 )

Facts of the case:

The petitioner sought ex-gratia compensation for her husband's death in a vehicular accident on 31.12.2019, where the son was hit by a mini bus. An FIR was lodged, and a representation for compensation was filed but not addressed. (Paras 2 , 3 )

Findings of Court:

The court concluded that the ex-gratia compensation under the Notifications is limited to specific circumstances, primarily excluding identified vehicular accidents where compensation can be claimed through the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. (Paras 9 , 12 )

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner was entitled to ex-gratia compensation under the Notifications when she had already received compensation through the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. (Paras 6 , 12 )

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the ex-gratia compensation is intended for specific cases, and since the petitioner had already received compensation through the Tribunal, further claims under the Notifications were not warranted. (Paras 9 , 12 )

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

Heard Mr. M. R. Khandakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Hazarika, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department, and Ms. Usha Das, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of their respective respondents.

2. The petitioner, herein, by way of instituting the present proceeding, has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities for payment of ex-gratia compensation to her for the death occasioning to her husband Late Samial Basir Zaman on account of a vehicular accident which had occurred on 31.12.2019.

3. As projected in the writ petition, on 31.12.2019, when the son of the petitioner, named-above, was proceeding by a motor cycle from Chenga towards Nagaon College, he had met with an accident and a Mini Bus having AS-01-EC-6710 moving towards Guwahati in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the son of the petitioner, causing grievous injury to the petitioner along with injury caused to the pillion rider. The son of the petitioner although taken to the Hospital, was declared dead on arrival. In view of the said accident occasioning, the Uncle of the petitioner Ismail Hussain Khan had lodged an First Information Report(FIR) in the matter with the Officer in-charge of Barpeta Police Station. The petitioner, herein, thereafter, had approached the respondent authorities praying for grant of ex-gratia compensation in terms of the Notification, dated 24.04.2007, by way of filing a representation, dated 07.04.2022. The said representation of the petitioner not being attended to by the respondent authorities and the compensation as prayed for by her not being released; the petitioner, herein, has instituted the present proceeding.

4. At the outset, it is to be noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner on a query made by this Court, has submitted that basing on the accident leading to the death of the son of the petitioner; a Motor Accident Claim Tribunal proceeding was instituted and compensation has been granted therein to the claimants.

5. The petitioner, in the present proceeding, has prayed for grant of compensation basing on the Notification, dated 24.04.2007 and the Notification, dated 15.11.2014. Vide the Notification, dated 24.04.2007, the compensation as stipulated for relief to the family in respect of the persons who were killed/injured due to bomb blasts, group clashes/ extremist activities, accidental causes, etc., in terms of the Notification, dated 22.09.1998, was enhanced. Thereafter, vide Notification, dated 15.11.2014, the quantum of relief as stipulated vide Notification, dated 24.04.2007, was further revised.

6. A perusal of the Notification, dated 24.04.2007, reveals that for accidental deaths also, ex-gratia compensation was being provided by the State. In terms of the Notification, dated 15.11.2014, for accidental death; ex-gratia compensation to the next-of-kin to the persons killed on account of the accident occurring in public place or in any public carriers, was fixed at Rs. 2 lakhs. It is the said ex-gratia compensation amount of Rs. 2 lakhs that is now being sought to be directed to be released to the petitioner on account of the death of her son in a vehicular accident occurring in a public place.

7. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Monisa Khatun @ Monisha Khatun [judgment & order, dated 21.06.2024, in WP(c)2700/2023] had considered the same issue. On consideration of the case laws as referred to by the learned counsels appearing for the parties to the proceeding, therein; the co-ordinate Bench of this Court had drawn the following conclusions:

    14) In this case in hand, the claim of the Petitioner is on the basis that her husband was killed due to an accident in public place which comes within the ambit of serial no. 3 of the notification dated


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top