“Mere Presumption of Death Insufficient for Ex Gratia Relief, Rules Delhi High Court”
On 11 November 2025, the Delhi High Court (DHC) delivered a significant judgment rejecting an application for ex gratía relief under the Defence Civilian Medical Aid Fund (DCMAF) on the ground that mere presumption of death was insufficient to trigger the relief.
Facts of the Case
A widow filed a petition challenging the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which had denied her claim for a sum of ₹50,000 from the DCMAF. The deceased husband — a Ministry of Defence vehicle mechanic — had gone missing in 1999 while proceeding to duty. He was presumed dead in 2006 under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act after seven years of his non-appearance.
The DHC bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain held that although the FIR had been lodged and the presumption of death established, there was no basis to establish death in an accident (which is a mandatory condition under DCMAF rules). The court observed that the DCMAF scheme provides relief only if death is due to “specified medical conditions” or “accident” — not simply on the basis of a presumption of death.
Legal Reasoning
The court emphasised that Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act allows presumption of death after seven years of non-appearance, but this addresses fact of death, not the circumstances of death.
Since DCMAF rules require that death must be due to an accident (or specified medical condition), the applicant could not satisfy the causal/triggerring condition simply because death was presumed.
Granting ex gratía relief “in absence of compliance with the DCMAF rules would be beyond the scope of the statutory framework.”
Implications for Claimants and Administrations
Claimants relying merely on presumption of death must ensure that the scheme’s eligibility conditions (e.g., death by accident, service-related death) are met and documented.
Administrative authorities will treat presumption of death as one piece of evidence, but will require independent proof that the scheme’s triggering event occurred (e.g., accident/injury or medical cause).
This judgment reinforces scheme-strictness and may encourage clearer drafting of relief policies, as well as more rigorous investigation of cause of death.
For practitioners: when advising dependents of missing persons, highlight that obtaining presumption of death is important, but may not suffice for relief unless the underlying cause aligns with scheme criteria.
Why the Case Matters
It marks a clarificatory line between “fact of death” and “cause/circumstances of death” in relation to ex gratía relief schemes.
It offers a precedent for other government-employee death benefit schemes: mere absence or missing person status does not automatically unlock relief unless scheme conditions are satisfied.
From a policy perspective, sets expectations for families and legal advisors about the evidentiary burden and the need to align facts with scheme conditions.
Trending on Google / Fast Indexing
This blog is optimised for SEO, incorporating the key phrase presumption of death insufficient for ex gratia relief, and is structured to answer likely search queries (e.g., “ex gratia relief presumption of death”, “DCMAF eligibility presumption of death”). With timely publication and use of relevant entity names (Delhi High Court, DCMAF), it aligns with search intent and is suitable for fast indexing by Google.
To further boost indexing:
Use short-URL (slug above) and submit to Google Search Console.
Share on legal and financial forums, social channels with backlinking to increase crawl frequency.
Ensure mobile-friendly format, use of headings (H1, H2), and alt-text for images (as provided) to assist image search indexing.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q1: What does ‘presumption of death’ mean under Indian law?
A1: Under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, if a person has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of them, the court may presume death. This addresses the fact of death but says nothing about how or why the person died.
Q2: Does presumption of death automatically entitle a dependent to ex gratía relief?
A2: No. As the Delhi High Court held, presumption of death alone is insufficient. Relief under schemes like DCMAF depends on meeting both the fact of death and the specific triggering condition (e.g., accident or service-related cause).
Q3: What are the key eligibility requirements under the DCMAF for ex gratía relief?
A3: The scheme provides for lump-sum relief when death is due to specified medical conditions or due to an accident (while on duty). The applicant must show that the relevant condition is fulfilled; mere non-appearance or missing person status is inadequate.
Q4: What should a claimant do if their relative is missing and presumed dead, but the scheme requires death by accident?
A4: The claimant should:
Secure a court declaration of death (or presumption under Sec 108) to establish fact of death.
Investigate and document whether there was an accident or service-related event leading to death; obtain FIR, medical records, post-mortem (if possible) etc.
Submit all relevant evidence with the relief application; emphasise link between death and scheme-triggering event.
Q5: Will this judgment only apply to DCMAF or to other ex gratía schemes too?
A5: While the specific judgment deals with DCMAF, the legal principle — that the fact of death is different from the circumstances of death required for relief — is broadly applicable. Other schemes with eligibility tied to cause of death or service-connection will likely follow similar reasoning.
Q6: How can legal practitioners leverage this judgment?
A6: Attorneys advising cases involving death benefits should:
Published on : 11th November
Published by : Selvi
Credit: Richa Sahay
www.vizzve.com || www.vizzveservices.com
Follow us on social media: Facebook || Linkedin || Instagram
🛡 Powered by Vizzve Financial
RBI-Registered Loan Partner | 10 Lakh+ Customers | ₹600 Cr+ Disbursed