Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010216022021 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6979/2021 DHANADA DAS AND 5 ORS W/O- LATE DHANJIT DAS, VILL-BANGSHIBARI PATHAR, P.O- KATAJAR, P.S- GOBARDHANA, DIST- BAKSA, ASSAM, PIN- 781315 2: PURNIMA DAS D/O-LATE DHANJIT DAS VILL-BANGSHIBARI PATHAR P.O- KATAJAR P.S- GOBARDHANA DIST- BAKSA ASSAM PIN- 781315 3: JANMONI DAS D/O-LATE DHANJIT DAS VILL-BANGSHIBARI PATHAR P.O- KATAJAR P.S- GOBARDHANA DIST- BAKSA ASSAM PIN- 781315 4: DISHA DAS D/O-LATE DHANJIT DAS VILL-BANGSHIBARI PATHAR P.O- KATAJAR P.S- GOBARDHANA DIST- BAKSA ASSAM PIN- 781315 5: PRABHAT DAS S/O- LATE KAMAL DAS VILL-BANGSHIBARI PATHAR Page No.# 2/7 P.O- KATAJAR P.S- GOBARDHANA DIST- BAKSA ASSAM PIN- 781315 6: SUCHILA DAS W/O-SRI PRABHAT DAS VILL-BANGSHIBARI PATHAR P.O- KATAJAR P.S- GOBARDHANA DIST- BAKSA ASSAM PIN- 78131 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE (RELIEF AND REHABILITATION) AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY-06 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF BAKSA P.O AND P.S-MUSHALPUR DIST- BAKSA PIN- 781373 ASSAM 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER JALAH REVENUE CIRCLE P.O JALAH P.S- GOBARDHANA DIST- BAKSA PIN- 781327 ASSAM 4:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE GOBARDHANA POLICE STATION P.O- GOBARDHANA DIST- BAKSA PIN- 781315 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R Deka, S.R.ISLAM,B CHOUDHURY,S I AKAND,A CHOUDHURY Page No.# 3/7 Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 10.02.2026 Heard Mr. S. I. Akand, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, appearing for the respondent no.1 as well as Mr. N. Das, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4. 2. The petitioners in the present proceedings has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities for payment of an ex-gratia compensation to her/them for the death occasioning to her/their husband/father/son late Dhanjit Das on account of a vehicular accident which had occured on 27.11.2019. 3. As projected in the writ petition, Dhanjit Das, who is the husband of petitioner no.1, father of the petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 and son of petitioner nos.5 and 6, while proceeding from his village Bangshibari Pathar to Safakamari through a village public road at around 1.00 p.m on 27.11.2019, met with an accident on being hit by a Tractor bearing Registration No.AS-15-AC-2035 which was contended to be moving in a rash and negligent manner. On account of the said accident, Dhanjit Das died on the spot. The petitioner no.1, thereafter, lodged an FIR on 19.12.2019 with regard to the accident involved which had resulted in the death of her husband. The said FIR on Page No.# 4/7 receipt was registered as Gobardhana P.S. Case No.312/2019 under Section 279/304(A) of IPC. The petitioner no.1 thereafter submitted a representation before the Deputy Commissioner Baksa, praying for authorizing to her ex-gratia compensation for the death occasioning to her husband on account of vehicular accident on 27.11.2019 in terms of the policy, in place. The said claim made by the petitioner no.1 not having been favorably considered by the respondent authorities, the petitioners have instituted the present writ petition. 4. At the outset it is to be noted that the learned counsel for the petitioners on a query made by this Court, has submitted that basing on the accident leading to the death of the husband of the petitioner no.1, a proceeding was instituted before the jurisdictional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT). 5. The petitioners, in the present proceeding, have 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 Page No.# 5/7 in any public carriers, was fixed at Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs). It is the said ex-gratia compensation amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) that is now being sought to be directed to be released to the petitioner on account of the death of his wife 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).No.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 15.11.2014. It is not in dispute that the petitioner can pursue her case for claiming motor vehicle accident compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 15) In the case of Shashi Sharma (supra), the Supreme Court of India had held that a claim based on contract cannot have any correlation to amount receivable under a statute. Therefore, the claim receivable under statute like provident fund, pension, life insurance, retiral benefits, etc. are deemed to be excluded from amount receivable as motor vehicle compensation. The said position is clarified by the 2- Judge Bench in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). 16) The question is whether petitioner is entitled for ex gratia compensation under notification dated 15.11.2014, when just and fair compensation for accident involving motor vehicle accident can be otherwise claimed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 17) The notification dated 15.11.2014, envisaging grant of compensation is found to be relatable 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. Therefore, accident must be in connection with acts committed by extremist, terrorist, or miscreants, or accidents arising out of group clash, communal violence, and ethnic Page No.# 6/7 violence. The said notification dated 15.11.2014, cannot be read as if all persons suffering from any accident except hit and run case where the offending vehicle remain unidentified in the Final Form after police investigation, would become entitled to ex gratia where other statutory remedy is available.” 8. On perusal of the conclusions drawn by this Court in the case of Monisa Khatun @ Monisha Khatun (supra); this Court is in respectful agreement with the same. 9. Given the purport of release of ex-gratia compensation as revealed from the Notifications, dated 24.04.2007, and dated 15.11.2014; this Court is of the considered view that the said ex-gratia compensation is so provided to the next-of-kin and/or person injured when such injury occasions on account of extremist/terrorist violence/acts of miscreant/communal violence /ethnic violence/group clash/firing of security forces/accident, etc.. Although the said Notifications also mandates payment of ex-gratia compensation on account of an accident occasioning in public places or in any public carriers; the same must be understood to be limited to a hit-and-run case wherein the offending vehicle is not identified. As and when an offending vehicle involved in a vehicular accident is identified; the next-of-kin and/or person killed and/or the person injured, can always pursue their remedy before the jurisdictional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. 10. The compensation due on account of a vehicular accident, in the event, it is so established before a Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT); is a just and fair compensation in the accident involved. 11. At this stage, it is to be noticed that the Government of Assam, vide a subsequent Notification, dated 31.10.2023, had excluded all cases of vehicular Page No.# 7/7 accidents from the purview of grant of ex-gratia compensation except in hit-and-run cases and third-party cases hit by vehicles at public place. 12. In view of the above discussion, considering the nature of accident involving in the present proceedings resulting in the death of Dhanjit Das, this Court is of the considered view that the same would not be covered by the provisions of notification dated 15.11.2014. Accordingly, the petitioners are held to be not entitled to be authorized ex-gratia compensation for the vehicular accident involved in the matter. 13. In view of the above conclusions, this writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant