HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 298 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Anchal Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1988'), assailing the judgment and order dated 19.05.2025 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bahraich (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.75/74 of 2024. 3. The record indicates that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 28.07.2025 had issued notices to the respondents and as per office report dated 26.08.2025, notice on the respondents was sufficient. But since none had put in appearance, this Court on 29.08.2025 had passed the following :- "Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent, though the name of Anchal Mishra has been shown as counsel for the respondent. The record indicates that the appellant has filed the instant appeal assailing the order dated 19.05.2025 passed by M.A.C.T., Bahraich whereby the claim petition of the claimant has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. The record indicates that notices were issued vide order dated 28.07.2025 and as per office report dated 26.08.2025 notice on the respondent nos.1 and 2 is sufficient despite the same, none has put in appearance. In the interest of justice, the matter is passed over. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Bhanu Pratap Singh, Naved Alam, Prateek Mishra, Varsha Doharey Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anchal Mishra Jalimun .....Appellant(s) Manager Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) List on 10.09.2025 as fresh. It will be open for the respondents to file their response, if they so wish, otherwise, the matter shall be heard in their absence. " 4. Since none has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 despite due service, accordingly, the Court has proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. The appellant has approached this Court with a very limited prayer, that in a motor accident which occurred on 20.08.2023, Mohd. Alam died. The claim petition was filed on behalf of his legal heir and mother on 06.03.2024. 6. It is urged that the Tribunal, by means of the impugned order dated 19.05.2025, has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the details as to how much delay had occurred were not mentioned in the application or in the supporting affidavit seeking condonation of delay. It was also noticed that although the ground indicating the illness of the claimant was taken, no supporting documents were placed to substantiate the same and for the said reason, it rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 7. Having considered the aforesaid and noticing a decision of a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court dated 24.03.2023 passed in Writ-C No.8262 of 2023 : in re: Smt. Jyoti and Another vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Presiding Officer and another, where the Court has taken note of Section 166(3) and 166(4) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and has laid down that in all matters the ground of limitation would be considered, the relevant portion of the said judgment is being reproduced hereunder :- "20. Scope of Section 166(3) which empowers the claimant to apply under Section 166(3) within 6 months on conjoint reading with Section 166(4) of the Act and on the basis of analysis referred above, has to be referable to cases of motor accidents in which no FIR could be registered for any reason or where he chooses to file a claim before the Police Authorities send the report to the Claims Tribunal. 21. In the present case, the Tribunal has not considered this aspect and has failed to record any material fact in respect of the accident report being on record and/or steps taken thereon by the Tribunal in terms of Rule 204 A and has proceeded to reject the claim petition ignoring the said aspect, as such, the impugned order dated 27.01.2023 is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. FAFO No. 298 of 2025 2 22. The Claims Tribunal is directed to process and decide the claim in accordance with law as it was the duty of the Police Officer investigating the accident to sent the information and it was also mandatory on the Claims Tribunal to accept the said report as a claim application which appears to have not been done, for no fault of the petitioner. 23. In case the police officer has failed to fill/send his report, the Tribunal will be well within its powers to call for the same and register it as a Claim Petition and then take steps as prescribed under Rule 204A of the Rules. 24. Thus, the order dated 27.01.2023 is set aside. It is further directed for guidance of Tribunals functioning under the Act, that the mandate of Section 159 and Section 166(4) of the Act has to be considered before rejecting any claim application under section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act on grounds of limitation. " 8. In light of the dictum of this Court in Smt. Jyoti and another (supra), which has been noticed hereinabove, this Court finds that the manner in which the application for condontion of delay has been dealt with by the Tribunal is apparently erroneous. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 19.05.2025 is set aside. The claim petition shall stand restored on the board of the Tribunal, who shall, after issuing notice and affording full opportunity to the parties concerned, consider the petition on its own merit. 10. With the aforesaid, appeal is allowed. September 10, 2025 Shubhankar FAFO No. 298 of 2025 3 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench