Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Rewati Bai Uikey vs The State Of M.P. on 24 September, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49020
1 WP-35138-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 24 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 35138 of 2025
SMT.REWATI BAI UIKEY
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay K.Saini - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vineet Singh - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-
"(a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to consider the notice (P/4) immediately with directing the respondent No.3 for completing investigation with seizer of the offending vehicle and charge-sheeted regarding aforesaid motor accident dtd.
31.10.2024 in Crime No.416/2024 of PS-Bichhiya Distt. Mandla.
(b) Issue directions to the respondent No.2 for providing copy of charge sheet with extent time for filing petition u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act before the claims tribunal.
(c) Issue directions against the respondents to pay amount of compensation for accidental death of son of petitioner due to their gross negligence.
(d) Issue any other writ, order or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner.
(e) The cost of the petition."
2. This Court vide order dated 16.09.2025 has directed the State authorities to seek instructions in the matter and procure current status report with respect to Crime No.416/2024 registered at Police Station Bichhiya District Mandla. Counsel appearing for the State on instructions has pointed out that the charge sheet has been filed in the matter on 22.09.2025, therefore, as far as relief No.7(a) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 26-09-2025 11:26:21 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49020 2 WP-35138-2025 and (b) are concerned, they are already extended to the petitioner.
3. It is argued by the counsel that a criminal case was registered at Crime No.416/2024 on 31.10.2024 for offence under Sections 106 and 281 of BNSS for motor accidental death of the son of the petitioner. It is argued that there is a time limit prescribed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for filing a claim for compensation that is six months from the date of causing accident. The limitation prescribed under Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act has came into force with effect from 01.04.2022. The petitioner had made several attempts before the authorities for performing their duties but of no avail. Now admittedly, they have filed the charge sheet beyond the limitation period, therefore, the petitioner is not able to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act because of expiry of limitation. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for grant of compensation from the respondents towards the accidental death of his son due to gross negligence on the part of the authorities.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. As far as the relief No.7(a) and 7(b) are concerned, as the charge sheet has already been filed in the matter, therefore, the relief No.7(a) and 7(b) are already extended to the petitioner, no directions are required in the matter. The petitioner claims that due to lapses on the part of the authority, he is not in a position to file a case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act due to amendment prescribing a limit of six months limitation for filing a claim case which has come into force with effect from 01.04.2022. It is argued that if the authorities have filed the charge sheet within six months then he could have filed a claim petition. However, on the lapses on the part of the authorities, he may be compensated.
6. It is the settled proposition of law that the compensation cannot be claimed on the lapses on the part of the authorities in a petition under Article 226 of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 26-09-2025 11:26:21 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49020 3 WP-35138-2025 Constitution of India. The Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior Bench in the case of Rasul Khan vs. State of M.P. (Writ Appeal No.1253 of 2020, dated 21.12.2020) has held that no writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable seeking compensation. The remedy is elsewhere. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: -
"From perusal of the record, it is seen that admitted position in the present case is that the petitioner had approached State Govt. for financial help for surgery and cochlear implant of both of his sons. The amount was sanctioned by the State Govt. and cheque was issued in favour of the hospital but unfortunately, the cheque was dishonored and on the complaint being made by the hospital against the petitioner, FIR was got registered which on investigation was found to be false, therefore, the petitioner was discharged. But during aforesaid period of investigation, the sons have attained majority and now, there cannot be any surgery or cochlear implant done due to their attaining majority. The most unfortunate part of the entire case is that the financial assistance/help issued by the State Govt. in favour of the petitioner could not be extended to him owing to the reason that cheque issued has been dishonored. Now, sons of the petitioner could not get cochlear implant done and they have to live entire life with the ear ailment. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred writ petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.80 lac. It is settled principles of law that compensation cannot be claimed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as a matter of right. Three Judges Bench of Supreme court in the case of Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ananta Bhattacharya and Others reported in (2004) Volume 6 SCC 213 has held that public remedy for the purpose of grant of compensation can be resorted to only when the fundamental rights of a citizen are violated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and not otherwise. It has further been held that it is not every violation of provisions of Constitution or statute which could enable the court to direct for grant of compensation. The power of the court of judicial review to grant compensation to public remedy is limited. In other words, the power to grant compensation is confined only to the cases of violation of fundamental rights.
In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Uphar Tragedy Victims Association and others reported in (2011) Volume 14 SCC 481 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that public law causes of action to claim compensation for breach of fundamental right is described as constitutional tort and in such cases, constitutional courts are expected to vindicate the parties constitutionally, compensate them for resulting harm and also to defer future misconduct. However, this public law power/constitutional Courts to grant compensation is seldom exercise merely due to violation of some statutory provisions resulting in monetary loss to the claimants. In most of the cases such powers are exercised where there is intense serious violation of personal liberty, right to life or violation of human rights.Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 26-09-2025 11:26:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49020 4 WP-35138-2025 In the case of Rajendra Singh Pathaniya and others Vs. State of NCT New Delhi reported in (2011) volume 13 SCC 329, it has been held that the court can award compensation for violation of fundamental rights against the State Govt. or a public servant only after making proper inquiry. From aforesaid initiation of law, it is evident that proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India of public law remedy for the purpose of grant of compensation can be resorted to only in the cases of violation of fundamental rights of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
After going through the entire pleadings and considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that as the petitioner has prayed for compensation which cannot be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution India, therefore, no illegality is said to have been committed by the writ court. Accordingly, finding no merit in the writ appeal, the appeal is dismissed. However, liberty is extended to the petitioner/appellant to approach appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance."
7. If the aforesaid proposition is applied to the facts and circumstances in the present case, no directions can be issued granting compensation to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the remedy of the petitioner is elsewhere.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed off with a liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative and efficacious remedy claiming compensation.
9. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE AM Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 26-09-2025 11:26:21