“Interim Stay Of Notification Not Ground To Deny Compensation”: Patna High Court Upholds ₹5 Lakh Relief To Accident Victim's Family

The Patna High Court has refused to interfere with a Single Judge's direction to pay interim compensation to a victim's family, including a conditional direction restraining the District Magistrate from drawing salary upon non-compliance, holding that benefits under a valid notification cannot be denied merely due to its interim stay during pendency of litigation.A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State of Bihar challenging the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge. The Single Judge had directed the District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah to pay a sum of ₹4,75,000 to the writ petitioner within eight weeks, failing which the District Magistrate was restrained from drawing salary.The writ petition had been filed by Suresh Sah, whose son died in a road accident on 21.03.2022 due to rash and negligent driving by an unknown truck. A criminal case was registered under Sections 279 and 304A IPC, and post-mortem and death certificate were duly issued.The petitioner had submitted all requisite documents seeking compensation under the Bihar Motor Vehicle (Amendment-1) Rules, 2021, which provided for interim compensation of ₹5 lakh in cases of death. However, his claim was kept in abeyance by the authorities on the ground that the said notification had been stayed by the High Court in separate proceedings.Before the Division Bench, the State contended that since the Gazette Notification dated 11.08.2021 had been stayed by this Court and subsequently repealed by a fresh notification dated 20.10.2023, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of ₹5 lakh. It was argued that only ₹25,000 (later enhanced to ₹2 lakh under amended provisions) was payable under the Solatium Scheme and Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act.The respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the notification dated 11.08.2021 was in force at the time of the accident and death, and that subsequent stay or repeal could not retrospectively deprive him of the benefit. The Court noted that it was undisputed that the accident occurred on 21.03.2022, at which point the 2021 notification providing for ₹5 lakh interim compensation was in force.Rejecting the State's contention, the Court held that the mere fact that the notification was stayed during pendency of litigation could not be a ground to deny compensation. It observed that while disposing of the earlier writ petitions challenging the notification, the Court had specifically clarified that any compensation withheld solely due to interim orders must be disbursed expeditiously. The Court held:In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the stay of operation of the Gazette notification by this Court in the writ petition for a particular period, is not a ground to debar the claim of the writ petitioner to get the relief as per the said notification. It is pertinent to note that though the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.12.2022 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2183 of 2022 and other analogous cases stayed the operation of Gazette notification Nos. 683 and 684 dated 11.08.2021, but vide order dated 28.11.2023, while disposing of the writ petitions, made it clear that if any compensation amount remains to be paid, which payment was interdicted only by virtue of the pendency of the writ petitions and the interim order passed therein, the same shall be paid as expeditiously as possible by the District Magistrates to the victims of the accident or their dependents.The Court further held that the subsequent repeal of the notification in 2023 would not affect claims arising during the period when the notification was in force. Finding no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench upheld the direction to pay ₹5 lakh as interim compensation, noting that ₹25,000 had already been paid and the balance ₹4,75,000 remained due.Taking note of the continued non-compliance, the Court directed the District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah to disburse the balance amount within four weeks.The Court also clarified that the amount awarded was interim in nature, and the petitioner would be at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies for higher compensation in accordance with law.Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.Case Title: State of Bihar and Ors v. Suresh Sah.Case No.: Letters Patent Appeal No. 77 of 2025 (in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 316 of 2024).Appearance: Mrs. Shweta Anand appeared for the Appellant. Mr. Manoj Kumar appeared for the Respondent.Click Here To Read/Download Order

“Interim Stay Of Notification Not Ground To Deny Compensation”: Patna High Court Upholds ₹5 Lakh Relief To Accident Victim's Family

Rushil Batra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rushil Batra

“Interim Stay Of Notification Not Ground To Deny Compensation”: Patna High Court Upholds ₹5 Lakh Relief To Accident Victim's Family

Rushil Batra

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rushil Batra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers