1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 313 of 2024 SBI General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, 9th Floor, A And B Wing, Fulkrum Building, Sahar Road, Andheri West, Mumbai (M.H.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Manish Kumar Diwan S/o Late Shri Sewai Lal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Nai Ledri, Thana Jhagrakhand, Tehsil Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur (C.G.) 2 - Akash Singh Tomar S/o Late Shri Kamla Prasad Tomar Aged About 26 Years R/o Nagpur Chowraha, Thana Pondi, Distt. Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) 3 - Shivprasad Panika S/o Late Shri Jhagar Sai Panika Aged About 64 Years R/o Ward No. 6, Koriya Collery, Thana Chirmiri, Distt. Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Utsav Mahishwar, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Gunja Tarom, on behalf of Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Deblina Maiti, on behalf of Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11.09.2025 1) The petitioner/non-applicant No.2 has challenged the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the learned I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur in Claim Case No.18/2023, whereby the application filed by the applicant/Insurance Company under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the claim petition on the ground of limitation was dismissed. 2) Facts in brief are that on 13.08.2022, respondent No.1/claimant suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed on 28.03.2023 seeking compensation against the driver, owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle. The petitioner/Insurance Company filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC stating that in view of Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, no claim can be entertained after expiry of six months from the date of accident. Since the accident occurred on 13.08.2022 and the claim petition was filed on 28.03.2023, i.e. beyond the statutory period, the same was liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gohar 3 Mohammed v. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors., (2023) 4 SCC 381, and argued that the Tribunal had no authority to condone the delay. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and claims cannot be rejected merely on technical grounds of limitation. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5) Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that no application for compensation shall be entertained unless made within six months of the occurrence of the accident. However, sub-section (4) mandates that any report of accident forwarded under Section 159 shall be treated as an application for compensation. Section 159 obliges the police to prepare and forward an accident information report to the Tribunal within three months. 6) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gohar Mohammed (supra), particularly paragraphs 41–44 and 51, has clarified that if the claimant fails to file an application under Sections 164 or 166 within time, the report submitted by the police under Section 4 159 shall be treated as an application under Section 166(4), and in such cases, the claim cannot be defeated on the ground of limitation. 7) In the present case, the accident was duly reported to the police and an FIR was registered. The police, however, failed to forward the FIR to the Tribunal within the stipulated period. The claimant thereafter filed the claim petition on 28.03.2023. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application of the Insurance Company. 8) The Motor Vehicles Act being a benevolent legislation intended to protect victims of road accidents, technical pleas of limitation cannot be allowed to frustrate the statutory right of compensation. 9) Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 29.11.2023. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim