1 2025:CGHC:16175 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 87 of 2025 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Registered Office At ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai Maharashtra Through Legal Manager - Deepak Soni, Aged 33 Years, S/o Late M. L. Soni, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 5th Floor, Sky Park, In Front Of Bhatiya Hospital, Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Nageshwari W/o Shatrughan Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No. 16, Maansaabhaat, Po Nikum Tehsil And District - Durg Chhattisgarh 2. Falendra Sahu S/o Shatrughan Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Ward No. 16, Maansaabhaat, Po Nikum Tehsil And District - Durg Chhattisgarh 3. Jitesh Thakur S/o Vijay Thakur Aged About 46 Years R/o C/o Rajesh Parihar, Shyam Nagar, Near Fitness Hub, Shikshak Nagar Karvadha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 4. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. B-39 Inner Circle, Connaught Place New Delhi, Pin - 110001 Local Office - Opposite United Hospital, Old Bus Stand, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.04.08 10:34:29 +0530 2 For Applicant : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 0 7 .04.2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2025, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. 2. On due consideration and finding the reasons mentioned in the application to be satisfactory, I.A. No.01 is allowed and the delay of 26 days in filing the revision stands condoned. 3. Also heard on admission. 4. This Revision has been filed challenging the order dated 23.11.2024 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No.35/2023, whereby, the application preferred by the applicant/Insurance Company under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC with regard to delay, has been dismissed. 5. In this case, a claim application was filed before the Tribunal by respondents No.1 & 2 claiming compensation in respect of death of Shatrughan Sahu. The said application was filed beyond the period of six months. Therefore, the applicant/Insurance Company filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC which was rejected by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 23.11.2024 against which the present revision has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant/insurance company submits that as per Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is a limitation of six months for preferring a claim application and there is no provision for condonation of delay or extension of time for 3 filing the Claim application. However, the Tribunal has proceeded with the matter ignoring the delay caused in filing the claim application, therefore, the claim application itself is not maintainable. 7. Learned counsel further submits that the matter is pending adjudication in the matter of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited vs. Shreelakshmi T & Others in Petition(s) in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).9152/2023, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted stay in favour of the Insurance Company. 8. It is further submitted that the High Court of Kerala has also taken a view in the matter of Akshay Raj vs. Ministry of Law and Legislative Department, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 50 that the matter is condonable. However, the said order has also been challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.23834/2023 which is pending consideration. 9. In the matter of Malrawan vs. Praveen Travels reported in 2023 SCC Online Madras 5467, the Madras High Court has taken a view that in view of the provision contained under Section 159 of the Motor Vehicles Act, once it is incumbent upon the Police to forward the First Accident Report (FAR) and Detailed Accident Report (DAR) to the Claims Tribunal, the said report can also be treated to be a Claim Petition in terms of Section 166 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, mere pendency of matters before the Supreme Court concerning applicability of the Limitation Act would not be a sufficient ground to interfere in the matter. 10. In the matter of Akshay Raj (supra), the Kerala High Court has also considered the effect of Annexure XIII to Central Motor Vehicles Rules as also the aspect of statutory liability to submit the DAR. 4 11. Since the issue regarding delay in filing the Claim application under Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the mandatory requirement of submission of DAR before the Claims Tribunal by the Police has been raised before the Supreme Court which is pending adjudication, the present Revision is disposed of directing the Claims Tribunal not to pass final award in the Claim application pending before it till the aforesaid issues are decided conclusively by the Supreme Court. 12. The Tribunal is also directed to reconsider the application and pass a fresh order after adjudication of the issue which is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai