Dismissed¶27

Bugala Bai Kurre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Jul 2026WPC/5019/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bugala Bai Kurre v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPC No. 5019 of 2022, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (SB, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.), order dated 02/07/2026: hit-and-run death compensation; accident 08.03.2020; MoRTH notification dated 25.02.2022 raised compensation from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- w.e.f. 01.04.2022; held notification prospective — right to compensation crystallizes on date of accident and pendency/delay of claim confers no right to enhanced amount; award of Rs. 25,000/- by order dated 06.06.2022 upheld; writ petition under Article 226 dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The right to receive compensation under the hit-and-run scheme crystallizes on the date of the accident, and the quantum payable is required to be determined in accordance with the scheme prevailing on that date. ¶24

Bugala Bai Kurre Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- instead of Rs.25,000/- for her husband's death in a hit-and-run accident, given that the notification dated 25.02.2022 (effective 01.04.2022) enhanced the compensation and the order granting compensation was passed on 06.06.2022, although the accident occurred on 08.03.2020. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

The respondent authorities committed no illegality in awarding compensation in accordance with the scheme applicable on the date of the accident.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

¶24

Key takeaways

Mere pendency of the petitioner's application or delay in its disposal by the authorities would not confer a right to claim the enhanced compensation introduced subsequently.ratio¶26
The notification dated 25.02.2022 is prospective in operation and cannot be applied to an accident that occurred on 08.03.2020; the petitioner is therefore not entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.ratio¶27
No infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 06.06.2022 warranted interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Hit-and-run motor accident compensation — prospective operation of enhancement notification: The petitioner's husband died in a hit-and-run accident on 08.03.2020; by notification dated 25.02.2022 the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways enhanced compensation for death in hit-and-run cases from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- with effect from 01.04.2022. The respondent authorities by order dated 06.06.2022 awarded Rs. 25,000/-. Held: (i) the right to receive compensation under the scheme crystallizes on the date of the accident and the quantum is governed by the scheme prevailing on that date; (ii) mere pendency of the claim application or delay in its disposal confers no right to the subsequently introduced enhanced compensation; (iii) the notification dated 25.02.2022 is prospective in operation and cannot be applied to a pre-enforcement accident. The impugned order suffered no infirmity warranting interference under Article 226; writ petition dismissed.

2026:CGHC:27176

NAFR

AVINASH SHARMA

Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.07.06 10:57:23 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPC No. 5019 of 2022

¶8

1 - Bugala Bai Kurre W/o Late Shri Bhuneshwar Kurre Aged About 55 Years Residence Of Village - Dhourabhata Tahsil - Palari P.S. Kasdol District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Arvind Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Soumitra Kesharwani, PL.

¶13

SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board

¶14

02/07/2026

¶15

Instant Writ Petition has been preferred against the order dated 06.06.2022 (Annexure P/1) which has been passed by the State/respondents authorities for grant of compensation in respect of petitioner regarding hit and run case. The said order is challenged to the extent that the amount of Rs.25,000/- as proposed for compensation by the respondent authorities is inadequate, as the same ought to be Rs.2,00,000/- in view of the notification dated 25.02.2022 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways.

¶16

Gist of the facts are that on 08.03.2020, husband of petitioner died due to accident done by an unknown vehicle at village Padkidih. After his death, the petitioner who is the legal successor of the deceased, has submitted an

¶17

¶18

application before the respondent in prescribed format and claimed to pay the compensation in light of the scheme of the government. When no action has been taken in the claim case of petitioner, she submitted application on 23.11.2021 before the respondent in Jandarshan Progam and requested to decide the claim of petitioner and the petitioner has further submitted reminder on 24.01.2022 before the respondent. After submitting the application in prescribed format, the respondent authority drawn the order sheet and send proposal towards the concerning SDO(R) and the Tahsildar Suhela and after receiving the proposal from the said subordinate officials, passed the order on 06.06.2022 and pay the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- in favour of petitioner, while passing the impugned order the respondent authority has ignored fact that the Central Government, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways vide its notification dated 25.02.2022 has increased the compensation for death in hit and run cases from Rs. 25,000/- to 02,00,000/- and same shall be effected from 1st April 2022 but while issuing the impugned order, the respondent authority have paid the lesser compensation in favour of petitioner.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accident occurred on 08.03.2020 and the petitioner thereafter applied for grant of compensation for hit and run cases before the respondent authorities, which remained pending till june, 2022 and in the meanwhile, vide notification dated 25.02.2022, Central Government amended the scheme and increased the compensation from 25,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- which came in effect from 01.04.2022. Since, provision for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- came into effect on 01.04.2022 and the order for grant of compensation in the present matter was passed on

¶20

¶21

06.06.2022, thus, petitioner was entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation instead of Rs.25,000/-.

¶22

Learned State counsel submits that admittedly the amended scheme for grant of compensation amounting to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- came into effect from 01.04.2022 and it is also evident that application for grant of compensation of the petitioner was decided on 06.06.2022, however, what needs to be taken into consideration is the date of accident i.e. 08.03.2020 as on the said date, the amended scheme for grant of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- was not in force, as such, petitioner cannot be given the benefit of the said scheme.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available with the petition.

¶24

The undisputed facts reveal that the accident resulting in the death of the petitioner's husband occurred on 08.03.2020. On the said date, the scheme governing compensation in hit-and-run motor accident cases provided for payment of compensation of Rs.25,000/- in cases of death. Though the Central Government, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, by Notification dated 25.02.2022 enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-, the said notification specifically came into force with effect from 01.04.2022. There is no submission by the parties to indicate that it was intended to operate retrospectively or that it would govern claims arising out of accidents which had occurred prior to its enforcement. The right to receive compensation under the scheme crystallizes on the date of the accident, and the quantum payable is required to be determined in accordance with the scheme prevailing on that date. Mere pendency of the

¶25

¶26

petitioner's application or delay in its disposal by the authorities would not confer a right to claim the enhanced compensation introduced subsequently. Therefore, the respondent authorities committed no illegality in awarding compensation in accordance with the scheme applicable on the date of the accident.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 06.06.2022 warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is not entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- under the Notification dated 25.02.2022, as the same is prospective in operation and cannot be applied to an accident that occurred on 08.03.2020. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

( Amitendra Kishore Prasad ) Judge

¶30

Avinash

Bugala Bai Kurre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bugala Bai Kurre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumitra Kujur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Khoman Singh Vs Dhansai

Adimjati Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Gotia, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prem Machhuva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Beladula Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devendra Khanna Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Biselal Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh