Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 613 (GAU)

Dalimi Rongpi v. State of Assam and Ors.

2014-06-10

HRISHIKESH ROY

body2014
Hrishikesh Roy, J. -- Heard Ms. R. Devi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondents are represented by Ms. H.M. Phukan, the learned Govt. Advocate. 2. The petitioner is a resident of village Chakardow within Azara P.S. of Kamrup (R) District. The husband of the petitioner Late Gandhiram Rongpi while returning home on his bicycle on 27.4.2007 at about 10 P.M., was trampled to death by wild elephant and accordingly the Accident Case No. 4/2007 was registered in the Azara P.S. Since the Assam Government has a policy of making ex-gratia payment to victims of wild animals, the widow applied and her application for financial assistance was forwarded on 6.6.2007 (Annexure-D) by the D.F.O., Guwahati Wild Life Division. In this letter, the D.F.O. has certified that the petitioner's husband was killed by wild elephant and the death certificate and the post mortem report of the victim was enclosed to this letter addressed to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Wild Life, Assam. 3. Ms. R. Devi, learned counsel submits that the payable amount for victims of wild animals was enhanced to Rs. 1 lakh from Rs. 40,000/- through the Govt. Notification dated 6.3.2010 and accordingly the petitioner claims that direction should be given for immediate disbursal of the dues. The Govt. Advocate Ms. H.M. Phukan in her turn however submits that Late Gandhiram Rongpi was killed on 27.4.2007 and therefore only Rs. 40,000/- is payable since the earlier Govt. Notification dated 19.1.2004 was applicable on the date of killing. 4. The communication of the D.F.O. made on 6.6.2007 (Annexure-D) and also the Azara PS. Accident Case No. 4/2007 confirms the killing of Late Gandhiram Rongpi by wild elephant on 27.4.2007. Therefore as per the Govt. Policy, ex-gratia must be paid by the State respondents. But the question is how much is to be paid as ex-gratia to the widow of the victim. 5. In this case, the petitioner's husband Late Gandhiram Rongpi died on 27.4.2007 and for last more than 7 years, nothing was paid by the State to the widow. Therefore to restrict the payable ex-gratia to only Rs. 40,000/-, in my view would be unjust for loss of a precious life. The victims of wild animals must be compensated promptly without delay but here because of State's inaction, the victim's family is constrained to move Court to get their legitimate dues. Therefore to restrict the payable ex-gratia to only Rs. 40,000/-, in my view would be unjust for loss of a precious life. The victims of wild animals must be compensated promptly without delay but here because of State's inaction, the victim's family is constrained to move Court to get their legitimate dues. Therefore since the disbursal wasn't made on due time, I hold that the respondents should pay Rs. 1 Lakh and not Rs. 40,000/-, to the widow of the victim. 6. Considering the above, the respondents are directed to ensure disbursal of Rs. 1 Lakh on account of the death of Late Gandhiram Rongpi. This money be disbursed to the victim's family within 8 weeks of receipt of this order. If the amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the same should then be paid with interest @7%, w.e.f. date of death i.e. 27.4.2007. 7. The Registry should furnish a copy of this order to Ms. H.M. Phukan, the learned Govt. Advocate for necessary communication. The case is ordered accordingly.