1 2025:CGHC:20857 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 124 of 2025 I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Office / Divisional Office - Ground Floor, Vanijya Bhavan, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur (C.G.), Presently At - 5th Floor, Corporate Park, Opp. Banthia Nursing Home, Canal Road, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.), (Insurance Company Of Car Bearing No. C.G. 04 NC 1805) ... Applicant versus 1 - Tribhuvan Kumar Vishwakarma S/o Shri Rammilan Vishwakarma Aged About 48 Years R/o Gram - Jagannathpur, Tehsil And District - Balod (C.G.), 7987378853 (Claimant) 2 - Khageshwar Nayak S/o Gokul Nayak Aged About 24 Years R/o Patiapali, Thana - Basna, District - Mahasamund (C.G.), (Driver Owner Of Car Bearing No. C.G. 04 NC 1805) 3 - Sahastra Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. Co. Hyderabad, Address - Babukhan Millenium Center, Flat No. 403-404, Fourth Floor, Block B, Samajiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500082, (Registered Owner Of Car No. CG 04 NC 1805) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Suraj Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.05.08 10:14:34 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 07 .0 5 .2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2025 for grant of interim relief as also on admission. 2. This Revision has been filed challenging the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) in M.A.C.T. No.161/2024, whereby the application preferred by the applicant/Insurance Company under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been rejected. 3. In this case, an application was filed before the Tribunal by respondent No.1 claiming compensation. The said application was filed beyond the period of six months along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay which was allowed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the applicant/Insurance Company filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which was rejected by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 20.03.2025 against which the present revision has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant/insurance company submits that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. 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 application, therefore, the claim application itself is not maintainable. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the matter is pending adjudication in the case of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited vs. Shreelakshmi T & Others in 3 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 4 10. 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. 11. Consequently, I.A. No.01/2025 also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai