AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Mr. Behera, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. He submits, his client lost his wife due to snake bite. He draws attention to paragraph 4 in the petition introducing documents including final report filed by the police saying, death was due to snake bite and no foul play suspected.
Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and draws attention to pages 12 to 15 in the counter to demonstrate that death was ascertained to be due to COVID-19. Ex-gratia compensation of Rs.50,000/- stand sanctioned and is due to be disbursed. On query from Court regarding his client’s position on paragraph 4 in the petition Mr. Sharma submits, said paragraph was dealt with in paragraph 6 in the counter. The paragraph is reproduced below.
“That as regards the averments made in Para-2 to 5 of the writ petition, this deponent has no comments to offer.”
It is clear that State has no answer to averments introducing documents to show petitioner’s wife died by snake bite.
Petitioner will approach opposite party no.2 with this order and copies of annexure 2 series in the writ petition. Said opposite party is to deal with petitioner’s claim for compensation within four weeks from date of approach. Within the time, said opposite party will cause sanction and disbursement of compensation under the policy for death by snake bite.
The writ petition is disposed of.
………………………….