1 2025:CGHC:18177 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 101 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, 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 (Insurer) ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Panchami Baghel W/o Late Budhram Baghel Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Matewada Tehsil Tokapal, District Bastar C.G. 2. Kamalu Baghel S/o Late Budhram Baghel Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Matewada Tehsil Tokapal, District Bastar C.G. 3. Kawaldhar Baghel S/o Late Budhraag Baghel Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Matewada Tehsil Tokapal, District Bastar C.G. 4. Surendra Kuhraami S/o Late Sukhram Kuhraami Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Bade Kilepal Pujaripara, Police Station Kodenar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 5. Moti Mandavi S/o Shri Mangtu Mandavi Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Bade Kilepal Pujaripara, Police Station Kodenar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.04.23 10:29:28 +0530 2 For Applicant : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 22 .04.2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2025, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay. 2. On due consideration and finding the reasons assigned 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. This Revision has been preferred challenging the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, F.T.C., Bastar place Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.211/2023, whereby, the application preferred by the applicant/Insurance Company under Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 151 of CPC, has been dismissed. 4. In this case, a claim application was filed before the Tribunal by respondents 1 to 3 claiming compensation. The said application was filed beyond the period of six months. Therefore, the applicant/Insurance Company filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 & Section 151 of CPC which was rejected by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 07.12.2024 against which the present revision has been filed. 5. 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 filing the Claim application. However, the Tribunal has proceeded with the matter ignoring the delay caused in filing the claim 3 application, therefore, the claim application itself is not maintainable. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. Since the issue regarding delay in filing the Claim application under Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the mandatory 4 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. 11. The Tribunal is also directed to reconsider the claim 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