In claims for ex gratia compensation, where the specific cause of death is a disputed question of fact, the court may grant relief under a general notification but refer the higher, specific claim to a Civil Court for adjudication.

ORDER

Heard Shri A.S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri N. Goswami, learned State Counsel, Assam, respondent no. 2; Ms. M. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent no. 2 and Shri B.C. Muchahary, learned Standing Counsel, B.T.C., for the respondent no. 3.

The present writ petition has been instituted seeking the following reliefs:

“In the premises aforesaid, it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that Your Lordship would be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue notices upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ should not be issued directing the Respondent Authorities to pay financial benefits as per NDRF Provision and State Government existing Provision to such family whose family member loss life in such situation in heavy flood of Assam and/or cause/causes that being shown and upon hearing the parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute by providing complete and adequate relief to the Petitioner's family and/or pass such further or other Order or Orders as your Lordship may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice.”

As per the facts projected, the daughter of the petitioner, namely, Damini Basumatari, who was a student of Class-X, had met with an accidental death on 17.07.2019 during the flood situation. It has been contended that she was washed away in the heavy flood and the matter was immediately informed the Police Station whereafter U/D Case No. 5/2019 was registered culminating in a police report dated 30.08.2019. The petitioner had thereafter made representations for grant of relief/financial help. The petitioner has relied upon a letter dated 08.04.2015 and has claimed the relief of ex gratia.

Shri Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the aforesaid notification dated 08.04.2015, ex gratia payment is prescribed at Rs. 4 lakhs. He has submitted that the facts are not in dispute that the death of the daughter of the petitioner was a result of the flood situation. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Police Report dated 30.08.2019 as per which, the death was caused when the daughter of the petitioner fell in a deep watery cannel.

Per contra, Shri Goswami, learned State Counsel has submitted that while the aspect of death of the daughter of the petitioner is not disputed, there is a dispute with regard to the nature of the accident. He has submitted that there was no flood as such and even in the application made by the petitioner, there was no mention of any flood. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 2 on 16.03.2026 wherein the aspect of flood has not been admitted. He has submitted that if any compensation is entitled to by the petitioner, it would be under the notification dated 15.11.2014 which prescribes ex gratia of Rs. 2 lakhs. The aforesaid submissions made by the State Counsel have been endorsed by both Ms. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Shri Muchahary, learned Standing Counsel, B.T.C.

While the aspect of death of the daughter of the petitioner is not in dispute, the aspect as to the specific reason of such death is disputed. While the petitioner is contending that the his daughter was washed way in the flood causing her death in the Police Report dated 30.08.2019, the same has not been directly reflected and rather, it has been written that the deceased had fell in a deep watery cannel. This Court had also gone through the application filed by the petitioner seeking compensation wherein the aspect of flood has not even been mentioned. In this regard, the original application in vernacular has also been carefully perused and it appears that the English translation was not properly done.

Be that as it may, since the respondents have acceded to the extent that it would be the no